Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion. State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]]. Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here. Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question. Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context. It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format. Sections older than 21 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: Guidance on making articles conform to the neutrality policy can be found at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. For a list of articles that have been marked as potentially containing a NPOV problem, see Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, use the No original research noticeboard instead. For a review of whether a source is reliable, go to the Reliable sources noticeboard. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
Click here to start a new discussion

Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96

"Human shields" section at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

• War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The section War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Human shields is being frequently crafted by a couple of editors to:-

1) Treat allegations by Ukrainian civilians as facts.[1]

2) Ignore any allegations made by Russian armed forces.[2][3][

3) Ignore any allegations made against Ukraine by foreign civilians.[4]

This source is being used to claim "source reports it as fact. See WP:ALLEGED", but the source appears to be quoting and summarizing statements provided by Ukrainian civilians, mainly a Ukrainian schoolteacher named Svitlana Bryhinets.

I believe the allegations by the Russian armed forces, covered by reliable sources,[5] should be preserved since Azov Battalion's claims are being mentioned for alleging Russia of using chemical weapons.[6]

Civilians from South Africa and Bangladesh have said that they were used as human shields by Ukrainian forces. This has got coverage from undoubtedly reliable sources like:

• "Desperate dash for safety as SA students flee Ukraine war zone". TimesLIVE. 2022-03-06. Moodley said she witnessed first-hand Ukrainian soldiers and police using black and Indian people as human shields while they were under attack by Russians, shouting that their lives meant nothing. “They were using black people as human shields,” she said.
• "Kept as 'human shields' in Ukraine camps, say stranded Bangladeshis". The Daily Star (Bangladesh). 2022-03-05. We are being used as human shields. They don't even give us enough food to eat," lamented Malik.

This Washington Post article provides details on the use of civilian-populated areas as battlefield by Ukrainian forces. It quotes Canadian academic William Schabas, Human Rights Watch researcher Richard Weir and others.

At this moment, the section is clearly not complying with WP:YESPOV which says "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them'" and failing to maintain WP:NPOV by keeping it one-sided. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Georgethedragonslayer that a number of editors are pov pushing by deleting all details and references that are negative to Ukraine. My last major edits to the Human shield section is contained in this version here and the current version is here. Note that all references that are negative to Ukrane have been removed. Also note that the "The neutrality of this section is disputed" template has been removed, even though we are along way from consensus.

I have tried to engage the other editors in Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Human shields to reach a consensus, to no avail. Note that my latest attempted compromise at 08:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC) (ie simplifying the section and transfering the complex legal issue to a small summary in the Legal section at the bottom of the article, with a direct link to Human Shields (law), which could be expanded to cover the issue and how it effects the Russian / Ukraine conflict). Unfortunately it appears other editors interpretation of "simplifying" includes deleting all information negative to Ukraine.

Also note that this issue has now spilled over to the Human shields article, where all details negative to Ukraine have been deleted, compare this version of the "Russo-Ukrainian War" section with the latest version, with the section renamed "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Again, all details that are negative to Ukraine have been removed. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all the above. However, disruptive editing and POV pushing have affected not only the "Human shield" section but the whole article.

• "Mistreatment of marauders and pro-Russian supporters" section was removed ([7] [8] [9]) with no clear consensus (2 against 2) and has not yet been restored. It was backed by reliable sources and arguably relevant. See the discussion.
• Substantial changes to the lead section were made with no consensus. E.g. references to torture and killing of Russian POW were first replaced with references to their "ill-treatment", notwithstanding unequivocal sources [10], and later entirely suppressed [11]. See the discussion. The current version is "The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about videos of intimidation and interrogation of Ukrainian prisoners held by Russian forces, and videos of interrogation of Russian prisoners by Ukrainian forces", with basically no source in support - the quoted source doesn't mention the Monitoring Mission nor does it deal with intimidation and interrogation of Ukrainian prisoners.
• The BRD cycle has been repeatedly disregarded, talk page turned into a battleground and editors who have spent dozen of hours describing the atrocities of the crimes committed by the Russian army have repeatedly been accused of whitewashing the responsibilities of the Russian troops. Cooperation among editors has become difficult.
• Yesterday I solicited the participation of interested uninvolved editors with this OP. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Speaking only on the initial comment at the top of the thread... 1) yes, these "allegations" are essentially a matter of fact that have been independently confirmed by international organizations and journalists, 2) all official claims by Russian Ministry of Defense about it should be treated as intentional disinformation after so many lies they said; 3) one needs to look at the sources, I am not sure they are good enough to include such "exceptional claims". My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Just reporting by media outlets isn't enough, but they need to offer verifiable evidence. Have they? Ukraine has also made the claims like "Ghost of Kyiv", so according to you they must be "treated as intentional disinformation after so many lies they said", right? You need to get consensus from WP:RSN to treat Russian Defense Ministry as unreliable. Shankargb (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Going thorugh Georgethedragonslayer claims.

  1. Two reliable sources regarded claims of human shields usage in Yahidne reliable enough to assert it without attribution. Trying to frame it as mere allegations by "Ukrianian civilians" (sic) is most blatant POV pushing.

  2. Russian army has indeed made allegations, including a completely ludicrous 4.5 million human shields claim. But multiple scholars have rejected Russian claims as mere attempts to shift the blame for civilian deaths.[12][13]. So if we include Russian claims, we also need to include their rebuttal. Additionally I would note that currently the section also doesn't include claims by Ukrainian government officials, so if we add Russian government claims then Ukrainian ones will also have to go in.

  3. As far as foreign civilian claims go, Bangladeshi case was already discussed in depth at talk page and is frankly blatant case of UNDUE, as the single person making human shield claims also made other highly hyperbolic claims, like "The whole of Kyiv and Kharkiv have been burnt to ashes."[14] South African case is behind subscription making evaluation problematic. As there are certain UNDUE smells here too, I would like to see a full article before commenting further.

  Additionally I would note that Washington Post article does not claim that Ukraine is using "human shields".

  Btw, I am in favour of removing Azov's chemical weapons claim, it does seem quite UNDUE.--Staberinde (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Do any of those "two reliable" provide verifiable evidence or do they take responsibility for the allegations? I don't see that. I only see them reporting the allegations and quoting Ukrainian citizens. Some corrections: There is not just a "single person" from Bangladesh who is alleging Ukraine of human shields but one more person "who requested not to be named". As for the South African issue, you can find the full article here and it verifies the provided quotation. Bangladeshi and South African eye-witnesses are absolutely more WP:DUE than the claims made by Ukrainian citizens since we can assume that they don't have any direct conflict of interest in the conflict. Washington Post article says that Ukraine is using civilian neighborhoods for placing arms and it is putting civilians in danger. This is yet another form of using human shields and is called "neighbor procedure". Shankargb (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Both reliable sources clearly state that people were held as human shields with no additional "X claimed" or "Y alleged". Your wish to separately verify their evidence is irrelevant. About Bangladeshis, the "one more person "who requested not to be named"" does not blame Ukrainians, in fact the relevant sentence starts with "Yesterday, Russians took over this city...", so if anything it is blaming Russians. I also find it amusing how one can think that someone calling while being held at detention center has no "conflict of interest". Also your original research about "neighbourhood procedure" is irrelevant, the Washington Post article about Ukraine is very clearly avoiding making claims about human shields.--Staberinde (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Staberinde: If the source offers no empirical evidence then it needs to be entertained only as an allegation. Of your two sources, ABC article has been already evaluated above that it is only summarizing statements provided by Ukrainian civilians, mainly a Ukrainian schoolteacher named Svitlana Bryhinets, while Economist provides only a statement from a Ukrainian civilian Nadezhda Tereshchenko to explain about human shields. I wonder why you are using a different approach for assessing thedailystar.net. Sure another person starts the quotation with "Yesterday, Russians took over this city" but the quote ends with comments on Ukrainian forces that "They imprisoned us with the sole purpose of using us as human shields." Washington Post is explicit about "Ukraine’s strategy of placing heavy military equipment and other fortifications in civilian zones could weaken Western and Ukrainian efforts to hold Russia legally culpable for possible war crimes". I am not saying that this report should be included but it at least verifies claims from Russia that Ukraine is using civilian areas and putting their lives in danger, this is why it is not sensible to reject any Russian claim just because Russia made them. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  No. Reliable sources don't need to provide "empirical evidence" for Georgethedragonslayer to personally verify. ABC journalists visited the site, clearly interviewed multiple people and regarded the evidence sufficient to make statement about human shields with no "alleged", "claimed" etc.. Additionally we have a second reliable source to back up their assessment. That is totally sufficient. Thedailystar article uses "human shields" only in quotation marks, making it clear that it is merely reporting claims and not taking its stance on them. Difference is very clear. Also "but the quote ends with comments on Ukrainian forces" is your personal original research, there is no clear indication in the article for comment being about Ukrainian forces.--Staberinde (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  It is necessary for them to provide empirical evidence that how they got the information. It needs to be clear that what they "regarded" as "evidence sufficient to make statement", and so far there are only quotes from Ukrainian citizens so it can't be considered as anything more than allegation. The quote clearly ends with comments on Ukrainian forces and it is not a personal original research because the person is talking about "detention camp in Mykolaiv" and Mykolaiv was under Ukrainian control that time. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  No. It is not necessary for them to provide "empirical evidence". Please show which wikipedia policy requires reliable sources to provide "empirical evidence" for wikipedians to evaluate. I can already tell you that there is nothing in WP:RS about "empirical evidence". Good luck in your search. And no, there is nothing clear about the quote commenting on Ukrainian sources. Only forces the quote mentions are "Yesterday, Russians took over this city..." The rest is your original research. So in addition of RS policy, your are also advised to familiarize yourself with WP:OR.--Staberinde (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  It is very necessary because we can't do it without analyzing where the information came from. Your post shows you are ignorant of WP:RSCONTEXT which says "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." But here, upon checking the information we only find the claims from your "two" reliable sources to be based on the quotes provided by Ukrainian citizens, so they need to be properly attributed. You are similarly misreading the quotation by ignoring the sentence that "They imprisoned us with the sole purpose of using us as human shields," as the source is clearly talking about the "detention camp in Mykolaiv" which has been under Ukrainian control. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure what are you trying to argue with this WP:RSCONTEXT quote. There is nothing there to back your "necessary for them to provide empirical evidence" claim. Do you think ABC and The Economist don't have enough people "engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing" or what? Also there is nothing clear about detention camp being under Ukrainian control in the source, this is all your personal synthesis.--Staberinde (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  Context is important that where did the information come from. You haven't disputed that ABC and The Economist' article is based only on statements by Ukrainian eye-witnesses, which means that our article must not state them in WP:WIKIVOICE but attribute properly. And if "there is nothing clear about detention camp being under Ukrainian control" then you are indirectly suggesting that it could have been under control of Russia. Do you have any evidence of that? If you don't have it, then absolutely it was under Ukrainian control, since the article is about Ukrainian forces being alleged by Bangladeshis to have used them as human shields. If they meant something else, then that would be clear. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  • This thread makes me feel I was wise to stop editing this article when I did. I have however gone through it several times recently, and have closely followed the events of this war. I feel compelled, in case somebody reading this thread does not know better, to agree that the Russian Ministry of Defense is absolutely not a source of information that anyone should be taking seriously. The OP forgot the one where the Azov Battalion was supposedly holed up in the maternity hospital in Mariupol, holding hostages, and blew the hospital up because they are Nazis. No really, that was the official Russian version of events for a while, and be damned to the AP photographers who documented the patients being evacuated while in labor. NPOV does not require us to act as stenographers for such a disdain for the truth.Elinruby (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  May be we should have an RfC that official Russian versions can only be mentioned in the context of disinformation. They are not just lying all over the place (which has been documented in reliable sources), they also sometimes add a bit of truth so that we can not claim they are ONLY lying, but this means that what they say is just random and has no connection to reality. Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  If this kind of nonsense continues this may indeed become necessary. Volunteer Marek 01:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  What is interesting about the Gerasimov doctrine is that apparently he believed that this was being done to Putin, so clearly he should respond in kind. And also, Putin's information bubble is possibly restricting his own access to information. But as to the RfC idea, I predict that users would come out of the woodwork to cry Russophobia. Yes, I do despair of Wikipedia these days, but can you blame me? I have just had to document that life under Stalin was not "dandy". I am currently kind of broken and am going away for a while now. Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with Ymblanter because otherwise all Ukrainian claims should be discarded too due to disinformation incidents like Ghost of Kyiv. Let us not forget that academics have also described that Ukraine used human shields in this conflict since 2014:

  • Chinkin, C.; Kaldor, M. (2017). International Law and New Wars. Cambridge University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-107-17121-3. Some protestors from the Maidan formed a predominantly female self-defence unit known as Unit 39, while in Eastern Ukraine there is reported to be a 25-member all female battalion based in the town of Krasny Luch. Some have suggested that the women have been recruited on the Eastern side as human shields; a Kiev news agency reported Donetsk leaders as saying 'no one will shoot at separatists if they are women'.
  • Darden, J.T.; Henshaw, A.; Szekely, O. (2019). Insurgent Women: Female Combatants in Civil Wars. Georgetown University Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-62616-667-7. Women played a key role in providing supplies to family members who were effectively trapped on Ukrainian military bases in Crimea. Some went so far as to act as human shields, protecting Ukrainian troops during the invasion.

  When allegations about Ukraine using human shields were correct as the history has shown, then it is incorrect to assume them as baseless this time too. Shankargb (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. Your item 1: female combatants are not the same thing as human shields. Also would Eastern Ukraine be Donetsk? Your item #2: Voluntarily remaining with a military unit is not the same thing as being held hostage. Russia unquestionably lied about its actions in Crimea, and reportedly held the parliament there at gunpoint until they passed a bill calling for a referendum. Bonus item: Ukrainian villagers have claimed to have been involuntarily used as used as human shields by Russian soldiers, including a 16yo who says she was raped. And that soldiers wrote "children" on the outside of the house. Bottom line, there would have to be some very very good sources before I believed an organization that has provably lied so much and so often Elinruby (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about TimesLIVE (what used to be a free tabloid from South Aftica) but I wouldn't call The Daily Star "undoubtedly reliable". It publishes a lot of sensationalist stories and garbage. Maybe not up there with DailyMail but maybe something like Express UK. Regardless, both of these sources "report" on claims that have not gotten coverage in any other main sources. If you search for "Russia Ukraine human shields" (or "Ukraine Russia human shields") you have to click through like 15+ pages of search results of "Russia is using human shields" before you find these stories. Someone (the editors trying to add this nonsense) went to a lot of trouble to find *something*, anything, that would serve as an excuse for them to write "both Russia and Ukraine are doing it". It's textbook POV pushing with false balance.

And in fact the story in the Star is just dubious. The individuals involved were in some detention camp "ran by the European Union" (sic) in the town of Zhuravychi which is... in Western Ukraine close to the Polish border nowhere close to where any fighting took place. Yet they are making claims that "Russians have taken the city" or "Russian tanks rolling by" and are calling on "Russian authorities to come rescue them" (!!!). They claim to be "human shields" but... like I said, there's absolutely been no fighting happening where they're at. It turns out that they're in the camp because they entered Ukraine illegally after... confusing Ukraine with Russia and crossing the border, and it seems Ukraine didn't know what to do with them ([15]). It seems efforts were being made to repatriate them but it's not like you can just let a bunch of foreign dudes go wandering around a country that just got invaded and there's a war going on. Apparently these efforts weren't taking fast enough to to their liking. The claims about being "human shields" are pretty obviously hyperbolic exaggerations at best.

If you think that the above is on par with putting carriages with children on your tanks as you launch attacks then YOU are the one with a POV problem. In fact, this gross distortion right here illustrates nicely what the actual problem is on the article, and how desperately some people are trying to "both sides" the stories of war crimes that are coming out (sad truth is that one side is responsible for overwhelming majority of war crimes that've occurred and saying anything other than that fact is a clear breach of WP:NPOV and even WP:NOTHERE). Volunteer Marek 01:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The sentence "Since the onset of Ukrainian-Russian war (2014–present), both Russia and Ukraine have accused each other of using Human shields" is well sourced and accurate. There's no reason for omitting the claims made by the Russian authorities. If their claims turn out to be false, lies will be exposed, but the fact that they've claimed something is already a notable fact that deserves to be reported.

With regard to the stranded Bangladeshi, let me repeat what I've said on the talk page: the info should be given, but not in the human shield section. On this I've found this authoritative source (HRW) and this one (Infomigrants). They make clear that it's not a case of using human shields (probably the Russians don't even know about the migrants, or don't care) but rather ill-treatment of civilians in the context of war. The migrants were held in a detention facility supported with EU funding – "ran by the European Union" is perhaps inaccurate but not false – and Human Rights Watch said that "Whatever the original basis for their detention, their continued detention at the center is arbitrary and places them at risk of harm from the hostilities". The info could fit in a self-standing subsection entitled "Ill-treatment of irregular migrants in detention camps" within the general section on " Ill-treatment, torture and willful killing of civilians". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

TimesLIVE is not a "tabloid" and The Daily Star (Bangladesh) is also an established reliable source. You can't call them unreliable just because they disagree with your personal views. Google search results and SEO rankings have nothing to do with WP:VERIFY. You seem to be finding loopholes to keep the content out but none of your explanations fails to justify your content removal. If the article gives impression that "both Russia and Ukraine are doing it" with reliable sources, then it is called WP:NPOV not false balance. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not familiar with TimesLIVE but I am with The Daily Star. And it is indeed a tabloid. And no, it is not "an established reliable source". Care to support that claim? Here is an old discussion from 2014 which basically points out problems with it [16]. And I've just pointed out a myriad of problems with the story as presented. The UNDUE problem, of relying on idiosyncratic sources dredged up from the bottom of search results to present a false "both sides are doing it" narrative is IN addition to the fact that it's not RS. NPOV and RS are not "loopholes" but rather our policies. Volunteer Marek 05:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Daily Star Bangladesh is not a tabloid and the RSN discussion you linked hasn't said that it is unreliable as a source. The page in question Bangladesh Liberation War still use about 6 different references from this website. On historical subjects like that, it is absolutely better to rely on academic sources over news sources but the information we are discussing here hasn't been disputed by any other source and it comes from a established outlet like Daily Star Bangladesh which is running for decades. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Star quotes recently Russian Ambassador https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/diplomacy/news/some-bangladeshi-media-outlets-echoing-wests-anti-russia-campaign-russian-ambassador-2981986. Does it quote Ukrainian or neutral sources?Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• While there is definitely something to be said about taking anything said by Russian media with extremely high doubt, we should be aware that there's a lot of general unintentional misinformation going around in favor of Ukraine's position here as well, in part due to the lack of actual neutral third-party eyewitnesses able to confirm these stories. This is not to say we should have the same level of doubt in terms of Russia media stance, but we should be also wary of taking anything said in cases like this as 100% factual, at this stage. This is probably a situation that will take years after the events cool off and researchers figure out what had happened before we have something factual to be said about it. --Masem (t) 01:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Alright Masem but here are my two questions:
• If Ukrainian claims about Russia using human shields can be included, then why Russian claims about Ukraine using human shields cannot be included?
• If Ukrainian eye-witness accounts about Russia using human shields can be included then why accounts from foreigners, namely from South Africa and Bangladesh, cannot be included about Ukraine using human shields?

  I see no dispute about WP:VERIFY here, only WP:UNDUE or WP:DUE. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  There are disputes about WP:RS as well as WP:DUE. WP:VERFIY is a necessary not a sufficient condition for inclusion - it is the bare minimum. Volunteer Marek 05:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  There is no dispute about WP:RS because you are alone with calling TimesLIVE and The Daily Star (Bangladesh) unreliable when they are undoubtedly reliable sources. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Asserting and repeating something is not the same thing as supporting it. These are not "undoubtedly reliable sources" no matter how many times you say it. In fact, they're hardly reliable at all. I've already linked to one discussion where other editors expressed concern about The Daily Star in particular. I've also pointed out how the story in The Daily Star omits lots of key details - reported in another source - which makes it sensational garbage. Volunteer Marek 15:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  The discussion on the reliability of the sources seems to me no longer necessary since we have Human rights watch reporting on what has happened. Notwithstanding what the Bangladeshi thought and said, theirs was not a case of being used as human shields but of being subjected to ill-treatment related to war. As such we can account for it in an appropriate section to be created. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Keeping in mind that we are still in middle of an active event with barriers to some information transfer, I would still make sure to take any statements from Human Rights Watch as inline attributed ones. We definitely don't have to treat what they say with the level of doubt as anything out of state media from Russia, just that it should not be taken as 100% conclusive. --Masem (t) 15:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that's entirely correct and is what we've been doing in that article since the beginning. Apart from undisputed facts, everything there is "according to", "X said", "Y claimed". From time to time there are always editors who eliminate an "allegedly" or "reportedly", implicitly or explicitly claiming "we know all the truth about this" (e.g. image of victims in Bucha, recently), which I find a bit annoying, but I'm afraid there's nothing to do about this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Gitz6666: That is what this discussion is really about that we should be providing coverage to allegations from both sides and properly attribute the allegations. I don't see what is exactly wrong with that. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Who misnforms? One example. Ukraine has allegedly inflated number of dead Russian soldiers, but some Russian sources confirm similar numbers. Russia pretends to not participate in a war (but a special operaration), which is a bad joke. So Russia is obviously less reliable.

  Western people generally do not understand totalitarian propaganda, they belive that the truth is somewhere inbetween. No, the truth is 'the war' not half-war, half special operation.Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Russia has staged humanitarian help for Ukrainian people, alredy probably forgotten. European Union helps the civilians, not Russia. The scam included hundreds of participants. The Ghost of Kyiv belongs to a comletely different category. Any oppressed population needs a hero.Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

There are no 'undoubtely reliable sources'. The NYT controversies have been documented and described, the NYT is under continuous critics and surveillance of millions, including mine. I am not sure if the Daily Star has so many critical readers like the NYT has.Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: section seems to have been fixed and now includes terms such as "reported" and "alleged". GTNO6 (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Actually the issues number 2 ("Ignore any allegations made by Russian armed forces") and 3 ("Ignore any allegations made against Ukraine by foreign civilians") of @Georgethedragonslayer opening post are still open. After a period of apparent consensus, the section "Human shields" is once again controversial among editors, and the article would benefit from other editors' inputs to this thread on the talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  The section also talks about allegations made by Russian forces and foreign civilians. What are you talking about? And keep in mind that even if they were not mentioned, we can't just add original research and we need to write what reliable sources say. GTNO6 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Attack on Mers-el-Kébir: "British victory."

Could editors look at the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir article please, in particular whether the infobox:result field should be omitted or its contents changed.
The Attack on Mers-el-Kébir was a naval engagement between British and French fleets during the Second World War, when the British and French were formally allies, but the French government had just signed an armistice with Germany. In order to prevent the French ships falling into German or Italian hands, or to prevent their being used against the British by a future anti-British French government, the British gave the French the the alternatives of interning the ships in British-controlled ports or moving them to the French West Indies. If neither alternative was adopted, the British would attack French warships, which was what ultimately happended at Mers-el-Kébir, though a peaceful compromise was reached at Alexandria.
There has been a dispute for some time over the contents of the infobox (see the following talkpage discusssions: 2010, 2019, 2020, 2022). Over the years, the "result" field, which is not mandatory, has been set to various values or simply been deleted. Currently, it reads "British victory".
WP:Verifiabilty: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."
Personally, I don't know of any reliable sources, British or French, which present the result of the battle in terms of victory or defeat. I suspect that British sources would think it 'vulgar' to claim a British victory; French sources wouldn't admit to a defeat. Materially, the result was mixed, with a number of French ships managing to escape, including the best battleship/battlecruiser. Stategically, it stengthened the position of those in the French camp who favoured some kind of alliance with Germany.
In my opinion, it would be better to just omit the "result" field. I have given editors who want the infobox:result field to stay as it is ample opportunity to provide sources supporting their point of view, which they have failed to do.
I suppose that most neutrality disputes concern how much weight to give to the various viewpoints expressed in reliable sources and whether particular viewpoints are, actually, "fact", whereas here, no sources have been presented, some editors instead basing their arguments on what they personally feel is the truth. If there had been a Verifiability noticeboard, I would have presented this request there instead (perhaps I should have resorted to WP:RfC?). Having given other editors ample opportunity to present sources supporting their position, following the WP:Verifiabily policy and as has been done before, I would simply have deleted the infobox:result field. It is apparent, however, that other editors would have been willing to engage in an edit war to maintain the current state of the article.
    ←   ZScarpia   11:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

We've got a guideline on this somewhere. Ah, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history " infobox military conflict :

"Used for all conflicts and combat operations, such as battles, campaigns, and wars. The "result" parameter has often been a source of contention. Particular attention should be given to the advice therein. The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" (or similar) where the result was inconclusive or does not otherwise fit with these restrictions. In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes. It may also be appropriate to omit the "result"." Doug Weller talk 16:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

As per the template guidelines quoted above, the article does have an Aftermath section. Linking to it from the infobox.result field would, for me, be an acceptable alternative to just omitting that field.     ←   ZScarpia   12:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Heat stroke

Heat stroke looks to make several unsourced medical claims and uses low quality studies. MarshallKe (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

What has caused this to be escalated here? Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this might be better discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I took your advice and posted it there. And for Alex, the answer to your question is that I saw problems and I notified what I believed to be an appropriate noticeboard. MarshallKe (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

At the top of this page: "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion." Alexbrn (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste time with you, Alex. MarshallKe (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I am wondering whether this reply is a violation of your arbitration enforcement ban. Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Marshall, you could reciprocate. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hunt family (resume-like articles)

Hello! H.L. Hunt was a prominent American and billionaire. He had 15 children; we have 19 articles in the Category:Hunt family, including some grandchildren. I've just gone through four of them (Harville Hendrix, Leah Hunt-Hendrix, Hunter Hunt-Hendrix and Helen LaKelly Hunt and cleaned them up. All three were riddled with NPOV issues and promotionalism and had previously been tagged by other Wikipedians. A quick glance at other pages of Hunt family members shows additional NPOV issues. While many members of the family are clearly notable, Wikipedia's coverage is far too laudatory and the articles need significant improvement to bring them back into line with our standards. I would appreciate help from anyone else interested! Thank you. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I've now been through all of the articles in Category:Hunt family and made changes to most, and I believe the issue is significantly improved. However, I would still welcome further editing and second opinions from any interested Wikipedians. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

California Coastal Commission

I just recently became aware of a potential NPOV issue over at the California Coastal Commission. A single editor, User:Hephestus-1964, has rewritten and restructured the article in such a way as to introduce bias and turn it into a negative hit piece against the Commission. I would encourage people to examine the edit history, as it is quite revealing. Here is the original version before the bias was introduced. The user has intentionally flipped the script on the subject, and turned the topic from one of a Commission created by the public to protect the coast, to that of a persecutory government agency intent on destroying the lives of individuals. Not surprisingly, the user demonstrates an extreme, fringe libertarian POV in their other edits to Wikipedia. In other words, the user believes government is evil, and wealthy real estate developers trying to develop the coast are the victims of government overreach. I would like to suggest that the article should focus on secondary source summaries about the Commission and its major historical milestones, rather than cherry picked POV selections of what a single editor believes is best. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree the article needs some significant editing to present a NPOV of the Commission's work. The Enforcement section is mainly a list of gripes out of context. With these edits, I tried to focus on the work of the commission by moving content to a section titled "Affordable overnight coastal accommodations" in order to show how these enforcement actions were in line with the purposes of the Coastal Act. The subsections "Fines issued" and "Project permits and proposals" are just lists with little context or continuity. I discussed many of these issues in the edit summaries for many months beginning in November 2020. These lists are easy to do because the Commission is in the news more for denying projects and fining people than the projects that benefit from the review and input of the Commission staff without going to court. I have not gotten back to work on the article since September 2021 but I think more subsections could be created to show how the fines and project permits enable the protection of coastal resources that includes shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor accommodations, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, visual resources, and regulation of agricultural lands, commercial fisheries, and industrial infrastructure. Showing how people, companies and other government agencies disagree with how the Commission carries out this protection is, of course, a necessary part of the article. Fettlemap (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does NOT mean what most people think it means, rather it means that we say what Reliable Sources WP:RS say. If RS's criticize the commission, than the article should reflect that. Your reading of the article as slanted toward the commission previously and slanted against it now is your OPINION. Both myself and user User:Fettlemap have seen all of Hephestus-1964's edits to the CCC article and have many times re-written those edits to the sources. I have had discussions with Hephestus-1964 about how to summarize sources and some advice, all of which are viewable on the Talk page for that article or in the edit history. I would definitely say that at least the lead is VASTLY improved from what it was, and I see no neutrality issue there, and no way anyone could accuse the lead of being non-neutral.

If you have any SPECIFIC examples of text you feel is not accurately representing a source, you are free to WP:BOLDly change those statements. If you feel like it lacks RS's supporting pro-Commission activities, than you can find some and add to the article.

I don't understand why you are bringing this issue up here? ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

A good summary. Thanks Fettlemap (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Viriditas By calling them: "wealthy real estate developers" you are showing your bias. This is just something to keep in mind; I'm not trying to harass you, we all have our biases. Science teaches us to try to be aware of them and act independently of them. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It’s not my bias at all; it was the original wording of the lead ("Compromise on land use occurs along the coast due to lobbying of the 12 commissioners involving attorneys that advocate for continued homebuilding, hotels and restaurants for wealthy investors interferes with coastal access and protection of habitat in the coastal zone.") reflected by our best sources about the Commission. The article even reflects this conflict between wealthy real estate interests and the public interest. This is no bias, this is the central thesis. Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Where are your sources calling them "wealthy" real estate interests? Please list them with quotes.

Also, that previous lead line is not even proper English, in addition to being confusing nonsense. Clearly the current lead is significantly better. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

A grammar flame? Really? This entire NYT story from 2016, as only one story of many, depicts the battle between wealthy real estate developers, the Commission and their mandate, and the public interest. You seem to be very good at deflecting, changing the subject, and misdirection. Meanwhile, not a single word about climate change and sea level rise, a major concern for the Commission, appears anywhere in the article. It's as if the reader is being intentionally misdirected by editors, focusing instead on the legacy of fringe, anti-environmental conservative voices like Scalia, who famously attacked the Commission and their role in protecting public access to the coast. Coincidentally, Scalia was also a climate denier. As it stands right now, the article is devoted to its wealthy detractors, which is a clear NPOV violation of undue weight, all coatracks aside. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be unable to admit to your bias: the NYT article you point to never mentions the word "wealthy" or "rich". That is your own Original Research (and a liberal slur against developers) when the sources never state it that way. Clearly you are coming to this with your own significant bias. ---Avatar317^(talk) 18:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

This NYT piece also used in the article mentions "wealthy" twice, so it's based off the source. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

That article refers to wealthy LAND OWNERS and RESIDENTS, not DEVELOPERS or INVESTORS. There is a significant difference. ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree this article seems to have been taken over by an editor (or one acting as two?) with a bit of an agenda. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of who made which edits, the article has a lot of problems, from excessive listing of relatively minor items, to arbitrary statements of commissioners salaries and expenditures, and overreliance on both primary sources (which can be easily be cherry picked to push a POV) and myopic single-event daily news articles (which also lend themselves to disproportionate emphasis). The best sources to use would be books or longform journalism articles that take broad, historical views of the agency, and use these as rough guides for assessing due weight. "It was in the news" is not a guarantee of inclusion for a summary article on a 50-year-old institution. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment, and recommendation for sources. Personally, I have written very little of the article other than modifications to already existing or newly added statements with sources, so I have no idea whether "books or longform journalism articles that take broad, historical views of the agency" exist as sources. One longform blog entry as a source in the article is written by one of the former commissioners who was also an environmental activist (IIRC), so that one would be good for facts, but not as an Independent Source offering views on the success/failure of the agency. ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Good Party

Publicising this - Talk:Good Party#Political position - Rfc here, per WP:RFCTP. It really needs input from more editors with a neutral point of view. Please place your views on the linked talk page. Thanks. Helper201 (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Dictator and kleptocrat ?

I posted the text below at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view and User:Galobtter was kind enough to comment eight minutes after my posting on that page that the more appropriate venue would be this talk page so I am re-posting the text here:

The lead sentence of the Ferdinand Marcos lead paragraph states, "Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos Sr. (/ˈmɑːrkɔːs/ MAR-kawss;[5] September 11, 1917 – September 28, 1989) was a Filipino politician, lawyer, dictator,[6][7][8] and kleptocrat[9][10][11] who was the 10th president of the Philippines from 1965 to 1986."

And the last sentence of the lead paragraph states, "One of the most controversial leaders of the 20th century, Marcos' rule was infamous for its corruption,[15][16][17] extravagance,[18][19][20] and brutality.[21][22][23]"

The lead sentence of the Imelda Marcos lead paragraph states, "Imelda Romualdez Marcos[4] (locally [ɪˈmelda ˈmaɾkɔs]; born Imelda Remedios Visitacion Trinidad Romualdez; July 2, 1929) is a Filipina politician and convicted criminal who was First Lady of the Philippines for 20 years,[5] during which she and her husband Ferdinand Marcos stole billions of pesos[6][7]: 176  from the Filipino people,[8][9][10] amassing a personal fortune estimated to have been worth US$5 billion to US$10 billion by the time they were deposed in 1986.[11][12][13]"

The last sentence of the lead paragraph of the entry for their son Bongbong Marcos states, "He is the second child and only son of former president, dictator and kleptocrat[8] Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and former first lady and convicted criminal[9][10] Imelda Romualdez Marcos.[2]"

Wikipedia policy has been that individuals should be described as they are described in WP:RELIABLE SOURCES and it is undeniable that authoritarian and totalitarian leaders have engendered strong feelings against them.

Even taking into account that WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS and that one authoritarian / totalitarian will not be described in the same manner as another (the lead sentences of the entries for Josip Broz Tito and Ho Chi Minh describe each as a "statesman"), the use of such terms as "dictator", "corruption", "extravagance", "brutality", "stole billions of pesos from the Filipino people", "convicted criminal" and "kleptocrat" in lead sentences of articles seems unique. In fact, no other head of state appears to be described as a "kleptocrat" and certainly not in an article's lead sentence. The lead paragraph of the son's article uses such terms to describe his parents.

Between December 2020 and March 2022, there have been three discussions — Talk:Ferdinand Marcos/Archive 5#Discussion on improvements to the lede per the WP:BRD process — Talk:Ferdinand Marcos#Consistency with Wikipedia's use of the term "kleptocrat" — Talk:Ferdinand Marcos#RfC for the use of the term "kleptocrat" in Wikivoice on a political figure, but all of those discussions have been held upon Talk:Ferdinand Marcos and that specific talk page may not be watchlisted by a large number of editors. Perhaps a notice posted here may elicit additional responses. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Pretty accurate. They were exceptionally corrupt, so we follow what RS say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not true that "the use of such terms as 'dicator'... in lead sentences of articles (is) unique.

The opening sentence of Manuel Noriega's entry outright calls him a "Panamanian dictator, politician and military officer". In many other cases, such as for Fujimori and Suharto, the description appears in the second sentence of the opening paragraph.

So it's certainly not unprecedented and well within common practice. Sparryx (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Given that we are going to describe these people as "dictator", etc., WP editors tend to try to force these subjectively negative elements (even if they are reasonably true) as early as possible in the lede, which does not help with neutral, impartial or dispassionate tone, and instead make our articles look like massive amounts of finger pointing of blame, which is not neutral even if the content ultimately is. To take Ferdinand Marcos as an example, the lede paragraph could be written to say Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos Sr was a Filipino politician, and lawyer who was the 10th president of the Philippines from 1965 to 1986. He ruled under martial law from 1972 until 1981[12] and kept most of his martial law powers until he was deposed in 1986, branding his rule as "constitutional authoritarianism" under his Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (New Society Movement). One of the most controversial leaders of the 20th century, Marcos' rule was considered a dictatorship and kleptocracy, and was infamous for its corruption, extravagance, and brutality. No information has been lost, but by simply waiting two sentences in the lede to introduce the subjective facets, that reads far more neutrally and impartially as we are not rushing to judge him out of the gate. --Masem (t) 03:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Excellent! Install that version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I join Valjean in complementing Masem for constructing an encyclopedia-worthy rewrite. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS:FIRSTBIO states: "The first sentence should usually state: (5) The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)". These terms are the key descriptors that an overwhelming amount of reliable sources refer to Marcos as, and thus they belong in the lead sentence. -Object404 (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how old you people are, but president, dictator and kleptocrat are the 3 things Ferdinand is most famous for in history if you were old enough to actually be alive during his regime. Globally. These are supported by SO MANY reliable sources that we've had to cull a lot of them to prevent citation overkill. Since these are the things he is most known for, supported by an overwhelming amount of reliable sources, they belong in the lede, and lead sentence/paragraph. Though you people may have strong feelings about those terms, these are simply neutral, impartial, objective facts and descriptors about the subject. -Object404 (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, I somewhat use what I call the 'Hitler comparison': if a biography's lead (living or dead) seems more loaded, inflammatory, or reactionary, than that of Adolf Hitler, then something probably isn't quite right. Terrible deeds and awful people can and should be described in a dispassionate language and tone. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Right, and not disregarded, just that the lede, importantly, should move from most objective facts to more subjective ones. Only if the person was known only for something in the negative, like a serial killer, would we write the lede leading with the "negative" because there's no way to write around that. I know some have argued "but you have to explain why a person is notable in the first sentence" but that advice is nowhere in policy - the lede paragraph should explain that but that doesnt' require stuffing it into the lede sentence. --Masem (t) 03:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

A well-written article should have in the first sentence the main reason why the subject is notable. See MOS:FIRSTBIO for advice on well-written bio openings. Alexbrn (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It also says, re the lead sentence "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." and "However, try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead section". Again, there is zero requirement that what the person is notable has to be in the first sentence, only the first paragraph, and all of that must be balanced with neutral writing, which is a requirement per NPOV. --Masem (t) 03:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Very few things on Wikipedia are "requirements". The is also "zero requirement" that the first sentence of a bio omits the reason why the subject is notable. To the contrary, Wikipedia's style guidance is that it should normally be included. To write a really good bio, I recommend heeding MOS:BIO and not Masem's quirky rules. Alexbrn (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not a "quirkly" rule, and MOS:BIO tells one to write neutrally even in the lede. We're an encyclopedia, not a finger-pointer for blame and dislike on BIOs and BLPs that we know are typically seen in negative light in historical terms. We can write neutrally and impartially and still cover those negative facets in a lede paragraph easily (as I showed above), and that makes a drastic difference on tone for the whole article. Remember, I'm not proposing whitewashing of information, simply reordering. --Masem (t) 04:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, and I think it's a problem that you haunt noticeboards continually offering your quirky "proposals" as though they represented established consensus. There is no tension between MOS:BIO and WP:NPOV, and if you think there is you should raise it elsewhere. Meanwhile, I'd suggest it would be more helpful to point people to existing well-crafted consensus-based advice on how to write bio openings, rather than proposing your own maybe-incompatible formulations. Alexbrn (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:FIRSTBIO. "The first sentence should usually state: (5) The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)" These 3 impartial, objective and neutral key descriptors supported by an overwhelming amount of reliable sources are what make Marcos particularly notable: president, dictator, and kleptocrat. Divorce yourself from any emotions you may draw from these terms. These terms are objective and accurate and what an overwhelming amount of reliable sources say, and that is that. -Object404 (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS:FIRSTBIO: "(4) One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." -> These terms are neither subjective (they are objective fact), nor are they contentious (they are what most reliable sources state). -Object404 (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Well put. He did this to his own legacy and RS document it. We report what they say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

For comparison, here are fifteen (analogous ?) Wikipedia lead sentences with text as it currently exists [names listed in chronological order]:

• Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin[g] (born Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili;[d] 18 December [O.S. 6 December] 1878[1] – 5 March 1953) was a Georgian revolutionary and Soviet political leader who ruled the Soviet Union from 1922 until his death in 1953.
• Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (Italian: [beˈniːto aˈmilkare anˈdrɛːa mussoˈliːni];[1] 29 July 1883 – 28 April 1945) was an Italian politician and journalist who founded and led the National Fascist Party.
• Hồ Chí Minh[a] (born Nguyễn Sinh Cung;[b][3][4] 19 May 1890 – 2 September 1969[c]), commonly known as Bác Hồ ('Uncle Hồ')[7] or simply Bác,[d] also Hồ Chủ tịch ('President Hồ'), Nguyễn Tất Thành, Nguyễn Ái Quốc, Người cha già của dân tộc ('Father of the people'), was a Vietnamese revolutionary and statesman.
• Josip Broz (Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic: Јосип Броз, pronounced [jǒsip brôːz]; 7 May 1892 – 4 May 1980), commonly known as Tito (/ˈtiːtoʊ/;[2] Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic: Тито, pronounced [tîto]), was a Yugoslav communist revolutionary and statesman, serving in various positions from 1943 until his death in 1980.[3]
• Mao Zedong[a] (December 26, 1893 – September 9, 1976), also known as Chairman Mao, was a Chinese communist revolutionary who was the founder of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which he ruled as the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party from the establishment of the PRC in 1949 until his death in 1976.
• Juan Domingo Perón (UK: /pɛˈrɒn/, US: /pɛˈroʊn, pəˈ-, peɪˈ-/,[1][2][3] Spanish: [ˈxwan doˈmiŋɡo peˈɾon]; 8 October 1895 – 1 July 1974) was an Argentine Army general and politician.
• François Duvalier (French pronunciation: ​[fʁɑ̃swa dyvalje]; 14 April 1907 – 21 April 1971), also known as Papa Doc, was a Haitian politician who served as the President of Haiti from 1957 to 1971.[
• Kim Il-sung[d] (/ˈkɪm ˈɪlˈsʌŋ, -ˈsʊŋ/;[2] Korean: 김일성, Korean pronunciation: [kimils͈ʌŋ]; born Kim Song-ju[3] (김성주); 15 April 1912 – 8 July 1994) was a North Korean politician and the founder of North Korea, which he ruled from the country's establishment in 1948 until his death in 1994.
• Robert Gabriel Mugabe (/mʊˈɡɑːbi/;[1] Shona: [muɡaɓe]; 21 February 1924 – 6 September 2019) was a Zimbabwean revolutionary and politician who served as Prime Minister of Zimbabwe from 1980 to 1987 and then as President from 1987 to 2017.
• Pol Pot[a] (born Saloth Sâr;[b] 19 May 1925 – 15 April 1998) was a Cambodian revolutionary and politician who governed Cambodia as Prime Minister of Democratic Kampuchea between 1976 and 1979.
• Idi Amin Dada Oumee (/ˈiːdi ɑːˈmiːn, ˈɪdi -/, UK also /- æˈmiːn/; c. 1925 – 16 August 2003) was a Ugandan military officer and politician who served as the third president of Uganda from 1971 to 1979.
• Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz (/ˈkæstroʊ/;[1] American Spanish: [fiˈðel aleˈxandɾo ˈkastɾo ˈrus]; 13 August 1926 – 25 November 2016) was a Cuban revolutionary and politician who was the leader of Cuba from 1959 to 2008, serving as the prime minister of Cuba from 1959 to 1976 and president from 1976 to 2008.
• Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti (/hʊˈseɪn/;[3] Arabic: صدام حسين عبد المجيد التكريتي, romanized: Ṣaddām Ḥusayn ʿAbd al-Majīd al-Tikrītī;[a] 28 April 1937[b] – 30 December 2006) was an Iraqi politician who served as the fifth president of Iraq from 16 July 1979 until 9 April 2003.[8]
• Mengistu Haile Mariam (Amharic: መንግሥቱ ኀይለ ማሪያም, pronunciation: [mənɡɨstu haɪlə marjam]; born 21 May 1937) is an Ethiopian former army officer and politician who was the head of state of Ethiopia from 1977 to 1991 and General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Ethiopia from 1984 to 1991.
• Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi[b] (c. 1942 – 20 October 2011) was a Libyan revolutionary, politician and political theorist.

WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS, but none of these men was apparently a dictator (at least not in the lead sentence or not at all — two of them [#3 and #4] are described as "statesmen" in their lead sentences) and certainly none is described as a "kleptocrat", a term that does not seem to have been used by any other encyclopedia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, searching for "kleptocrat" on Wikipedia, besides discussion and definition of the term, turns up many articles using the term to describe Marcos, often with very similar wordings. Of the just 75 results for "kleptocrat", 22 come up when searching for "kleptocrat Marcos", or just under 30%. Though kleptocrat is indeed an English word that can accurately describe the Marcoses, it is clearly not a commonly used one in general (cf. "oligarch" at 2,424 results, "dictator" at 13,401). Moreover, even though the reliable sources cited in the article (correctly) identify him as a kleptocrat, there is fundamentally little about the Marcoses that make their claim to the term "kleptocrat" uniquely stronger than anyone else who could be reasonably described as such, including many of the names above. Unless the term kleptocrat is regionally popular in the politics of the Phillippines, there is little justification for its use as a specific and unique description for the Marcoses that makes up a significant chunk of its overall uses on Wikipedia. Pinguinn 🐧 11:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Marcos is most remembered for plunder, for the number of years he managed to hold on to his authoritarian powers, and for the various Human Rights abuses which allowed him to hold on to that power. I can't think of words other than "dictator and kleptocrat" that cover those items concisely, and so I think they should stay in the first sentence. - Thundersub (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

We go with what reliable sources say. The following is just a tiny slice of reliable sources that categorize Marcos as a kleptocrat: historians, political scientists, economists, and journalists all call him a kleptocrat, and I'd say that's pretty definitive as to what Marcos's notability is. Would you like me to go on and citation bomb this thread? I think that is uncalled for and is highly unnecessary. -Object404 (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

We of course incorporate material that is frequently reiterated in reliable sources, in the case of Marcos, it would be complete failure of UNDUE to not mention his rule as a dictatorship or kleptocracy. That is a requirement. But nothing in UNDUE says that this has to be incorporated in the first sentence of the lede, which is the misguided problem here. NPOV and BIO combined tell us that this should be mentioned early in the lede, but we still need to write the topic in an impartial, disinterested manner, and that means we should not ever be coming out the door in the lede sentence to throw subjective terms, even if well-backed by RSes, at the reader, since that immediately sets a tone for the whole article. The first sentence should be stating the plain basic facts, common for nearly all BIOs and BLPs, in a near mechanical manner. After which then switching to more subjective assessments (eg the nature of Macros' rule) within the first lede paragraph. That just makes for an article lede that is far less about throwing blame and dislike at a topic as we should be doing for an encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 16:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, we should note the final sentence in Masem's proposed paragraph above, "One of the most controversial leaders of the 20th century, Marcos' rule was considered a dictatorship and kleptocracy, and was infamous for its corruption, extravagance, and brutality."

There is a key semantic difference between the individual being described as a "kleptocrat", which none of the reliable sources does, and the administrative apparatus being described as a "kleptocracy", per reliable sources as reflected in Masem's paragraph construction.

As another example, a number of sources refer to the current Russian leadership as "dictatorship", "tyranny" and yes, "kleptocracy". However, none of that appears in the article phrased as Wikipedia voice and especially not in the lead. When it does appear, it is immediately reverted since Wikipedia has to maintain its neutrality and avoid accusations of becoming a propaganda tool. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

"that means we should not ever be coming out the door in the lede sentence to throw subjective terms" -> Dictator and kleptocrat are neither subjective terms. They are quite clearly objective, factual and neutral in the case of Ferdinand Marcos. They best describe him and his regime, and are the most accurate and succinct terms to describe him. Neither are they contentious as the majority of RS use those terms to describe him. There is NOTHING in Wikipedia that says they should not be used, in fact, MOS:FIRSTBIO dictates that they should be used: "The first sentence should usually state: (4) One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms. (5) The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)" -Object404 (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Correct, the word kleptocrat accurately describes the Marcoses. In fact, kleptocracy is one of the distinguishing characteristics of his administration. Good idea to keep it in the lede. - Crisantom (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I still come back to Masem's important point made above ("No information has been lost, but by simply waiting two sentences in the lede to introduce the subjective facets, that reads far more neutrally and impartially as we are not rushing to judge him out of the gate.") There is no censorship by just moving those words. Masem's version, as proposed above, is a good one:

Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos Sr was a Filipino politician, and lawyer who was the 10th president of the Philippines from 1965 to 1986. He ruled under martial law from 1972 until 1981[12] and kept most of his martial law powers until he was deposed in 1986, branding his rule as "constitutional authoritarianism" under his Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (New Society Movement). One of the most controversial leaders of the 20th century, Marcos' rule was considered a dictatorship and kleptocracy, and was infamous for its corruption, extravagance, and brutality.

I support Masem's version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Masem's version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• I fully agree with Masem’s take on this, and support his rewrite. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree - As per my argument above that the subject is best known for the dictatorship and kleptocracy. Better phrasing can be developed, but we shouldn't be downplaying the mentions of those characteristics. - Thundersub (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree - Was Marcos a dictator? Clearly yes. Was Marcos a kleptocrat? Clearly yes. Marcos was best known for his dictatorship and human rights abuses as well as his kleptocracy. No matter what emotions you personally draw from these terms, these are quite objective, factual and neutral terms that succinctly describe Marcos. They are neither subjective nor contentious, they are simple laying down of facts, which is what Encyclopedias are all about. Edit: disagree with removal of the non-contentious, objective and historically factual terms dictator and kleptocrat from the first sentence. -Object404 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • They are not neutral terms, even if there's general RS agreement about them. They are contentious terms (simply by virtue of their meaning), which per FIRSTBIO says to avoid including in a lede sentence. You're trying to focus all the facts into a lede sentence, but that's not a requirement nor helpful for a reader nor appropriate per NPOV's requirement on a neutral tone. Instead you can build up to those terms in two-three sentences without losing that information. ---Masem (t) 23:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but no. These are factual and neutral terms. There are no RS that say Marcos was not a dictator, neither are there RS that say Marcos was not a kleptocrat. Call a spade a spade. -Object404 (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Please read this story on the debate on the use of the terms Strongman vs. Dictator when referring to Marcos by the CNN Philippines newsroom. There is NO COLOR in calling a dictator a dictator. Call a spade a spade. Anything else may be tantamount to whitewashing and historical negationism. That is the end of that. -Object404 (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
      • The "call a spade a spade" / "strongman v dictator" has nothing to do with this - both terms are contentious terms in NPOV eyes and should be treated the same way. Importantly this is not soft-pedalling to try to find a different term that means "dictator" in less contentious language. This is not about eliminating terms like dictatory or kleptocrat, but recognizing that no matter how much they are backed by RSes and thus considered factual, they are still contentious forms of language by their very definition (that link supports that) and should not be present immediately in the lede sentence when trying to objectively define a topic, particularly not without building up to why those terms are used (the nature of the back half of his leadership), per FIRSTBIO and NPOV. --Masem (t) 00:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
      • And by way of example of how we shoudl be writing, EB uses this as their lede: Ferdinand Marcos, in full Ferdinand Edralin Marcos, (born September 11, 1917, Sarrat, Philippines—died September 28, 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.), Philippine lawyer and politician who, as head of state from 1966 to 1986, established an authoritarian regime in the Philippines that came under criticism for corruption and for its suppression of democratic processes. [17] I do note that that short entry overall does not use dictator or kleptocrat but we have more space in our article's body to include the sources to support that, but they clearly do not write otherwise favorable about Marcos overall; that lede is not buring the main issue that his rule was considered corrupt. --Masem (t) 00:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
        • Where is the contentiousness in what is clearly established fact? There is no contention that Marcos was a dictator and kleptocrat. WP:NPOV states: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." -> Are the terms fair? Yes. Are they proportionate? Yes. Do they have editorial bias? No. Are they the significant views published by reliable sources? Yes. Dictator and kleptocrat are neutral, objective and succinct terms that summarize Marcos's notability, hence they belong in the lead sentence as per MOS:FIRSTBIO. You are putting meaning and interpretation on where there is none. -Object404 (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
          • But that's still ignoring the other factors of NPOV on tone and writing style, reflected in FIRSTBIO (and BIO in general), that inheriently contentious terms like dictator (in this case because it associated with a negative perception of how one ran a country) should not be included in the first lede sentence. The insistence of putting these terms that have negative connotations before explaining why the term fit is the whole blame game/finger pointing problem with ledes like this. Yes, its in RSes, etc. I don't disagree with any of those assessments, but the terms are not factual, objective statements that we should lede off articles with an impartial dispassionate statement. Those are terms the lede absolutely should build up to once the factual groundwork is laid out, otherwise you have to write to backtrack those statement or flood the lede with unnecessary citations to try to justify that. --Masem (t) 01:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
            • Again, let me repeat. Is there any contention that Marcos was a dictator? No. Everyone agrees that he is a dictator. Is there any contention that Marcos was a kleptocrat? No. Everyone agrees that Marcos was a kleptocrat. Therefore, dictator and kleptocrat are not contentious terms. They are merely objective, neutral, statements of fact. Let me repeat the consensus that the newsroom of CNN arrived at: There is NO COLOR in calling a dictator a dictator. If the terms are good enough for historians, economists, political scientists and journalists and for academic use, then they are good enough for us. -Object404 (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
              • Terms can be contentious even if RSes agree on the use of the term; one has to look at the term's definitions to know if it paints the topic in a given way. It is not about agreement in sources, but the use of words and their meaning. Eg while I did a quick google scholar search to confirm that there's >500 sources that seem to use "kleptocrat/kleptocracy" in relation to Marcos, the term is still an indiciation of corrupt use of power in the first few sources I could review. Which is fine, there's academic agreement that there was corruption from Marcos' rule. But that's a negatively-loaded term regardless how much agreement there is about it, and does not objectively describe what Marcos' actually did as a profession (which was being a politican and a lawyer, terms which are wholly objective). So we should not be rushing the lede sentence with those negatively-loaded, contentious terms, though everything else still says, absolutely get to those terms in the lede and ideally lead the reader to understand why they apply so that you don't have to rely on reference overloading. Putting these types of terms before any buildup does not make for a impartial or dispassionate article since it tells the reader that the topic is going to be treated hostily from the start. We are fully capable of writing about topics that have recieved predominately hostile coverage (ala Marcos) in a manner that does not propagate that voice of hostility into WikiVoice, which is all that I've suggested with moving the terms to a latter part of the lede, still where they are DUEly appropriate so that a skimming reader will not miss them. --Masem (t) 05:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
                • Is there any contention that Marcos was a dictator? No. It is uncontested. Is there any contention that Marcos was a kleptocrat? No, it is uncontested. Therefore, these two terms are non-contentious. These terms are cold, hard, unbiased, impartial, historical factual descriptors of Marcos. Why does there need to be a "build-up" before we can state these unbiased descriptors of Marcos? Which Wikipedia rule says that? Please point out this Wikipedia rule for everyone's benefit. Good class article Al Capone states that he was BOTH businessman and gangster in the opening sentence. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't use the cold, hard, unbiased, non-contentious historically factual terms "dicator" and "kleptocrat" that scholarly, academic, and journalistic reliable sources use in the opening sentence of Ferdinand Marcos. -Object404 (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
                • Also, there is nothing "hostile" about using the terms "dictator" and "kleptocrat". Their usage is merely statement of cold, hard, non-contentious, unbiased historical fact. -Object404 (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

                  I don't think you are understanding Masem's point, he isn't advocating for the removal of those terms, he's simply just saying that they should be moved as the lead sentence should list professions. I mean, look at Adolf Hitler, Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who was the dictator of Germany from 1933 until his death in 1945. Everyone knows he was evil, but the lead sentence merely states the basics. That is what Masem is advocating for, the decluttering of the lead sentence. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 09:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

                  • I perfectly understand what Masem is advocating for. However, MOS:FIRSTBIO says that: "The first sentence should usually state: (4) One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms. (5) The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)" -- hence, the cold, hard, unbiased, objective, non-contentious, and historically factual terms for which Marcos is most notable for (being a president, dictator, and kleptocrat) belong in the first sentence. I hardly think 2 short words constitute clutter for the first sentence. -Object404 (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
                    • Let's put it another way. There are "facts" and then there are "facts". There are core, objective facts that require zero interpretation from events to state, eg Marcos was president of the Phillipines, and that his latter years of rule were under martial law. That happened, and it would not be any type of OR to incorporate. Then there's the other types of facts that are statements that require some type of expert sourcing to classify. In this case, asserting that Marcos was a dictator in the absence of any sources would be an OR violation in Wikivoice, and thus we are required to rely on expert sources to state the case why the term applies so we can use it. That clearly is true for "dictator" and "kleptocrat" here, there is absolutely the sourcing. And while there's still academic agreement that we are going to take that as a fact, it's not a "cold hard fact" because it did require expert analysis to use that way. It is why both of those terms are contentious because without the sourcing it would be a problem to include. That's the type of language lede sentences should avoid because they also incorprate systematic bias on the matter (elsewhere it is pointed out that the "kleptocrat" may be a Western viewpoint and not one shared by pan-Asian sources, for example). This is the type of awareness we need in writing our ledes to avoid introducing such terms at inappropriate times. --Masem (t) 23:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
                      • Please point out to me where in Wikipedia's rules are your "facts" and "facts" rule is stated. Or is this another one of your "quirky rules" as @Alexbrn: describes? MOS:FIRSTBIO is quite clear: "The first sentence should usually state: (4) One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms. (5) The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)". NOBODY disagrees that Marcos was a dictator and kleptocrat. Therefore these terms are non-contentious. These are also objective terms: they are used by the HUNDREDS of academic, scholarly and journalistic sources. Moreover, these 2 descriptors: dictator and kleptocrat are particularly what make Marcos notable as a president - they are what made Marcos famous GLOBALLY and what makes Marcos particularly notable. Wikipedia's rules are very clear: dictator and kleptocrat belong in the lead sentence. -Object404 (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
                        • A key word in FIRSTBIO that you are overlooking is "should". It is not "must". It is not a requirement. So stop stating that this is. Second, this is what a combination of FIRSTBIO, NPOV, and BLP all state that these elements need to be written impartially, even IMPARIAL states, as I have been pointing out "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized." And if you cannot understand how those terms are contentious by their meaning alone, not by the lack of RSes that contest the terms, then that's a good sign you may be too deeply invested in trying to assure those terms must be in the article to see the issue. --Masem (t) 04:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
                          • I think you have "should" confused with "may" or "can". "Should" indicates a strong directive to do so. There is nothing partial about using the terms dictator or kleptocrat. They are merely cold, hard statement of non-contentious objective fact. I am deeply invested in keeping Wikipedia factual, thank you. It is you who put meaning to those terms as there are no other way to go about using those terms - they are very succinct descriptors of what made Marcos actually notable globally. Otherwise he would have been just another Philippine president with no global fame. -Object404 (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

                    • Should is not equivalent to must, regardless of directive/connotation, it is not imperative. I am also highly inclined to think you would have to reach local consensus to make such a significant change as to adding "kleptocrat". I am going to be very frank with you, looking at the Kleptocracy article, it's poorly maintained, the list of notable figures is by en large developing country leaders, to me it's an archaic term. There are several good essays which detail the subtle introduction of bias within articles, and whilst I'm sure you are acting in good faith, I believe you are inadvertently adding an undertone in the lead sentence with the inclusion of kleptocrat. I think it needs to be reiterated: We are not advocating for the removal of your content; we simply would like to move it where we can give the reader more background and explanation as to why he was labeled as a kleptocrat. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 11:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
                      • @Alexbrn: summarizes it eloquently: editors that continually don't do what they should are known as bad editors. As for the term "kleptocrat" being "archaic", how come modern journalists and scholars still widely use the term to this day so it's hardly archaic. -Object404 (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

                        I personally thought it was archaic, "to me it's an archaic term." Nowhere did I imply or explicitly state that was the view of the journalistic world. Alexbrn's quote is a very broad term, and again if we look at multiple articles of controversial figures, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Ceaușescu, Théoneste Bagosora, the lead sentence merely lists their profession (and actually in Théoneste Bagosora's case, what is most known for is mentioned in the second sentence). Are you accusing the editors of those aforementioned articles of being bad editors for consistently ommitting the fact that many of those leaders were bad in the lead sentence? Again, I am simply pointing out the consensus on articles is to merely present a basic foundation in the lead sentence, then expand later on in the lead paragraph. Springee said quite eloquently: any article that makes someone who wasn't Hitler sound worse than Hitler is probably poorly written. I mean, look at Vladimir Putin's article. I'm no fan of the bloke professionally speaking but even his lead sentence shows restraint, despite endemic corruption in Russia akin to what Fredinand Marcos is guilty of too. I think that you'd be met with stiff opposition if you tried to insert words like "dictator", or "autocrat", despite him being referred by both in various media. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 21:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

                        The following are Good-Class Wikipedia articles with the following descriptors that you might say "sound worse than Hitler" in their opening sentences: Seung-Hui Cho - "mass-murderer", Terry Peder Rasmussen - "serial killer", Ted Bundy - "American serial killer" who "kidnapped, raped, and murdered", and Al Capone - "gangster". All of these are neutral, objective, uncolored non-contentious encyclopedic statements of plain fact. All of these people I mentioned had less bodycounts and committed less atrocities than Marcos, and yet these are considered Encyclopedic descriptions worthy of being considered "Good Class Articles" on Wikipedia. Perhaps it is the Hitler et al articles that need fixing, not the Marcos opening sentence, because dictator and kleptocrat are mere uncolored, unbiased, objective, non-contentious, plain statement of encyclopedic fact. Moreover, Marcos's dictatorship and kleptocracy are what make Marcos particularly notable - not his being a Philippine president, as his dictatorship and kleptocracy are what gave him global fame. Were he not a dictator and a kleptocrat, he would be just another obscure Philippine president, forgotten and largely unknown to the rest of the world. -Object404 (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

                        When the person is only known for a criminal activity, it is pretty had not to start such an article with "Soandso was a serial killer..." These are 100% factual terms (they were convicted and thus there is no further interpretation to be made. I'd have to consider the gangster aspect a bit more". In the case of Marcos, while there may have been criminal activity but he was also known to be the president of the Phillipines, so using the semifactual terms of dictator and kleptocrat would not ovrrriden the 109% factual role as president. --Masem (t) 15:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

                        Good sir, dictator and kleptocrat are 100% factual terms when referring to Marcos. In fact, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has judged his rule to be a kleptocracy. The Philippine government itself 100% acknowledges that he was a dictator, and have set up bodies like the Human Rights Victims' Violations Memorial Commission which categorizes him as a dictator. The Official Gazette (the official journal of the Republic of the Philippines) of the Philippine government officially calls his rule a dictatorship, so does the National Historical Commission of the Philippine government. Historians, Economists, Political Scientists and Journalists -- the exhaustive list of pertinent experts on the subject - call him dictator and kleptocrat. There are no RS that denies he is otherwise. I don't get where you got your "semi-factual" term from, but that Marcos was a dictator and kleptocrat are objective, undeniable, non-contentious uncontested fact. Also, Capone was also known for being a businessman, not just as a gangster. -Object404 (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

                        You have cherry picked articles to suit your agenda. Zero relevance as none of those people were state leaders, and they're exclusively known for the bad things they did. Hitler was not exclusively known as a mass murder despite the Holocaust, Hitler actually had numerous positive effects on the German nation. He rescued it from the Weimar, embarked on antismoking and anti alcohol campaigns, introduced pensions for mothers with lots of children (although that's probably linked to the whole Ayran business, it's besides the point), paid vacations, the creation of one of the largest modern passenger car companies, Volkswagen, none of which outweigh the negative effects the Holocaust had. I do not understand what is so hard to comprehend or why you feel the urge to put this in the lead sentence, you can cite all the FIRSTBIO or other relevant policies or whatever, but the fact is on large traffic articles like this bold changes need consensus. Its always been like that. Consensus takes priority over whatever policy you can dig up. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

                        Hitler article states that he was a dictator in the opening sentence. Tell me why it should be there and why it shouldn't be in the Marcos article. I hardly think there was "editorial bias" in stating that Hitler was a dictator in his opening sentence, much the same with Marcos. They are merely objective, non-contentious neutral statements of fact. Marcos was also the greatest kleptocrat of his time - he is known more for that globally than for being a president. As per MOS:FIRSTBIO, these 2 descriptors should be in his opening sentence. Also, you are quite factually and unequivocally wrong in your last statement. WP:NPOV states that "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.". Consensus does not take priority on certain Wikipedia policies. -Object404 (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

                        Again, you fail to understand me (I do not want to put this down to lack of reading comprehension as that's quite frankly discriminatory, but you do seem to have a habit of twisting my words). I did not mean that consensus superseded policies (and plus by introducing kleptocrat you're technically breaking NPOV but whatever), consensus takes priority in the sense that you cannot make a decision (such as whether kleptocrat belongs in the lead) without consensus. When reaching a decision consensus editors look at the policies and see how they can amend something to incorporate & suit the policies. You are getting nowhere restating FIRSTBIO, when several other editors have provided plenty of other leaders who are also known for heinous crimes but have very simple lead sentences. Again, see Vladimir Putin's lead sentence, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin (/ˈpuːtɪn/; Russian: Владимир Владимирович Путин; [vlɐˈdʲimʲɪr vlɐˈdʲimʲɪrəvʲɪtɕ ˈputʲɪn] (listen); born 7 October 1952) is a Russian politician and former intelligence officer who is the president of Russia, a position he has filled since 2012, and previously from 2000 until 2008. No mention of "kleptocrat", despite common knowledge that Putin has very, very deep pockets. It's literally mentioned at the bottom of the lead: Under Putin's leadership, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding and a shift to authoritarianism. Putin's rule has been characterised by endemic corruption, Dictator is because he held absolute power, this is literally true. Kleptocrat is a very fitting description of Marcos, but it requires an expert analysis to say so since it's a subjective term (it is NOT objective however you want to phrase it), it is not a "fact" in the sense that holding a position in a state that gives absolute power literally means you are a dictator (person who holds absolute power). Yes, many sources agree with you, yes, most experts agree that Marcos was a kleptocrat, but that still makes it a subjective opinion, it just happens to be that many people agree with this opinion, including well-informed experts. Hitler has dictator in his lead because he held absolute power. Please read WP:1AM. I am not going to reply to you any further as quite frankly this is a waste of time, you seem to be hell-bent on the inclusion of this in the lead, whilst the determination is admirable it is simply just a waste of time, we've already shown you, other leaders who engaged in similar activities do not have those adjectives. WP:SILENCE dictates that the way we write lead sentences in other politician's articles is the way to go. You win. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 22:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

                        I'm sorry, but Marcos also held absolute power legally and by excercise. By your own words, dictator should also be in Marcos's lead sentence then. Please read MARTIAL LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES: The Makings of a Constitutional Dictator from the Martial Law Museum:

                        "The Philippine government is generally divided into three branches: the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. Following the same principle of checks and balances, the President (executive) must thus approve laws passed by Senate and Congress (legislative), while the Supreme Court (judicial) may judge the constitutionality of the President’s actions.

                        Toward strengthening his dictatorial powers, Marcos made sure to disrupt this democratic setup. While he already had control of the executive branch as the President, he proceeded to take over all other functions that the government had mandate over. In effect, Marcos gave himself total control over the nation.

                        In General Order No. 1, signed September 22, 1972, Marcos declared:

                        Now, therefore, I, Ferdinand E. Marcos, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, do hereby proclaim that I shall govern the nation and direct the operation of the entire Government, including all its agencies and instrumentalities, in my capacity and shall exercise all the powers and prerogatives appurtenant and incident to my position as such Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

                        By taking control over the entire government, Marcos put himself in a position of absolute power over the laws of the land, with no legitimate body in existence to hold him in check. He personally appointed every provincial governor, city mayor, and municipal mayor throughout the nation. Throughout his term, he issued 1941 presidential decrees, 1331 letters of instruction, and 896 executive orders. His word was law."

                        -Object404 (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

                        I refuse to discuss an issue with a reader who literally has the reading comprehension of a Western middle-schooler. Cite me for WP:NPA, but despite the fact that every time I bring up a point you manage to obfuscate it into something totally irrelevant shows me you are too, too passionate. My words: Dictator is because he held absolute power, this is literally true. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 10:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

                        On Hitler, we actually have it defined that he ran a dictatorship by law: "The Act passed by a vote of 444–94, with all parties except the Social Democrats voting in favour. The Enabling Act, along with the Reichstag Fire Decree, transformed Hitler's government into a de facto legal dictatorship." Hence the term appropriate there. Macros rule has been judged by Rses to have been a dictatorship, but it was never legally one. Hence why uts a term to be used carefully there. --Masem (t) 22:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

                        Ahem. Good sirs, please see Proclamation No. 1081 which legally and officially turned Marcos into a dictator. Also please see the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruling which labeled the conjugal dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos a kleptocracy -> https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/54791. Ergo, Marcos was legally and officially BOTH dictator and kleptocrat. -Object404 (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

                        I see a pretty good case here for treating Marcos differently than any other dictator or kleptocrat. Most of them don't codify their status into law. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

                        I will grant that P1081 probably is good reason to include dictator earlier, but in contrast to Hilter, he still also was president for many years before that proclaimation, so unlike Hilter, where we say outright he was "dictator of Germany" directly, we should be careful.

                        "conjugal dictatorship" is an unofficial phrase which we should not use.

                        As to kleptocrat, that's a post-event finding which I would handle in a more "lay out the facts" way; P1081 did not create the kleptrocacy as that arose from the corruption that happened after P1081 and was only formally stated by the SC in 2018.

                        To go all the way back to what I wrote above, I would revise it to say

                        Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos Sr was a Filipino politician and lawyer. While elected to serve as the 10th president of the Philippines for two terms from 1965 to 1972, he declared himself the dictator of the country under Proclamation No. 1081 to extend his rule, implementing martial law from 1972 until 1981. He kept most of his martial law powers until he was deposed in 1986. His rule has been branded as a "constitutional authoritarianism" under his Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (New Society Movement). One of the most controversial leaders of the 20th century, Marcos' rule was infamous for its corruption, extravagance, and brutality, marking it as a kleptocracy.

                        Now, the reason this works (for the most part, my wordsmithing could be better) is that there's enough details to understand why we can call it outright a dictatorship right there, as well as the latter part of being a kleptocracy. We are not outright coming out the door to say "dictator" without laying out a few basic facts (to be expanded on in the body) that quickly get from point A to point B. Key is that it very awkward to have both "president" and "dictator" in the same line without explaning that. Masem (t) 00:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

                        Your structure is the exact opposite of the guideline WP:PYRAMID which suggests "placement of important information first, with a decreasing importance as the article advances". I also fail to see how Marcos's ongoing presidency before 1972 invalidates the emphasis on his dictatorship as Marcos is known globally and is more notable more for his dictatorship and kleptocracy than his presidency. I am unfamiliar with your "laying out basic facts/explanation before labels" rule with regards to Wikipedia writing style, as opposed to calling spades spades. Can you point us to any Wikipedia guideline or rule which favors this writing style that you espouse to enlighten us? Thanks. -Object404 (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

                        PYRAMID is an essay, and in fact says "Encyclopedia articles are not required to be in inverted pyramid order, and often aren't, especially when complex." Which is very clear in a case like Marcos.

                        While NPOV is a policy, which includes WP:YESPOV ("A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity.") ,WP:IMPARTIAL ("The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.") and MOS:FIRST ("Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."), in addition to the essay WP:MORALIZE ("Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide.") and essay WP:LTRD ("If an editor knows that a POV statement would be true, they should instead use neutral statements backed up by reliable citation and let the reader make the conclusion. For example, an editor does not need to say that Adolf Hitler was a genocidal maniac hell-bent on killing all the Jews. If they provide enough cited statements about his books, speeches, and concentration camps, then the reader would likely draw that conclusion.")

                        The short answer is that you have an entire lede (and even the first para of the lead) to hit the main points of notability. No policy, guideline, or essay requires us to include what is notable in the first sentence. Masem (t) 01:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

                        There is no moralization nor bias in stating that Marcos was a dictator and kleptocrat. They are plain cold, objective and uncontentious facts, even backed not just by all the relevant experts: historians, economists, political scientists, and journalists, but also by the letter of law. They do not disparage Marcos, they merely state plain facts of who he is. There are no heated disputes about Marcos's dictatorship nor kleptocracy: all the authorities acknowledge that he is. Clarity is what we are after here, and clarity is what those terms bring. Call spades spades. There are no moral judgements here, just laying down of basic facts.

                        The fact of the matter is, we are strongly urged by guidelines to include what is notable in the first sentence. The leaning is "towards" putting dictator and kleptocrat in the first sentence. You still have not shown any guidelines or rules which defend your insistence on a "build-up" structure of laying down predicates before we state facts.

                        Your main defense is that "it's not required", but it is the directed guideline. Your main argument for not doing so is "it's not required!", which is a very weak defense on why we shouldn't. -Object404 (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

        • Both terms (particularly "kleptocrat") are terms that have use cases where we cannot use in Wikivoice due to that involving some interpretation and original research (thus not plain objective facts), compared to saying something like "president of the Phillipines" which requires no interpretation. That is a plain objective fact. We can use those terms once we know we have RSes in majority using those terms but because we cannot directly use those terms without sourcing or attribution, it makes far more sense to explain why the terms apply before using the terms, which all can still fit in the lede para as I've demonstrated. There is also the moralization issue because when you come out the door in the lede sentense with those terms but without backing up why they apply, you are placing blame directly up front, which impact the whole tone of the article. The whole insistance that these terms are front and center is trying to make sure to call Marcos out as a bad person first thing, when we are to let sources and the reader actually make that determination. That's moralization and far too common on many articles today. We are required by NPOV to write impartially and dispassionately about topics (by policy), when everything else you're arguing on are essays and guidelines. --Masem (t) 06:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

      If these are not neutral terms then these should be removed altogether. However, both dictator and kleptocrat are terms that describe matters of fact and should be kept. You are correct that these terms are supported by reliable sources. - Crisantom (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

    So long as these are supported by reliable sources, then it is absolutely due to include these terms. It is actually very helpful to include these descriptions in the lede since these accurately describe the subject in a factual and neutral manner. - Crisantom (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Not only is dictator a common description of Marcos, he fully met the classical definition of an individual who rules by decree during an emergency, which Marcos did through Proclamation No. 1081. I would not call Marcos a kleptocrat however because the term is not clearly defined or evenly used. TFD (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, kleptocrat is clearly defined by the Cambridge Dictionary: "a leader who makes himself or herself rich and powerful by stealing from the rest of the people". Marcos was the textbook definition of a kleptocrat, and the term in reference to him is found in an enormous amount of reliable sources. -Object404 (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

That describes lots of government leaders. In fact, only some corrupt leaders are called kleptocrats. So it's not a complete definition. TFD (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's augment it with the Oxford dictionary definition: "a ruler who uses political power to steal his or her country's resources". Again, Marcos falls squarely into this and epitomizes it. Let me repeat too: an overwhelming amount of scholarly and journalistic reliable sources categorize Marcos as a kleptocrat. -Object404 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Former Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi was convicted of stealing millions from the people, but we don't call him a kleptocrat. None of the numerous U.S. mayors and governors convicted of theft are labelled kleptocrats. It is a term that is selectively used, depending on the political bias of the observer and exclusively applied to third world leaders, after they have fallen out of favor with the West. TFD (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, but Marcos was the quintessential kleptocrat - he held the Guinness World Record for greatest robbery of a government for decades! He was only overtaken by Suharto in a list because Suharto outlived him. That's what makes Marcos exceptional and unique, hence the appropriateness of the kleptocrat mention. -Object404 (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is the lead sentence of Suharto's entry: "Suharto (/suːˈhɑːrtoʊ/; Indonesian pronunciation (help·info); 8 June 1921 – 27 January 2008) was an Indonesian army officer and politician, who served as the second and the longest serving president of Indonesia." No mention of "dictator" or "kleptocrat". In fact, no other public figure is described as a "kleptocrat" in Wikipedia, to say nothing of being so described in the lead sentence. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. This is important to point out. I will add that Marcos is also considered a kleptocrat by critics of neocolonialism and scholars and investigative journalists identified with the global south. Crisantom (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is the description from a Filipino journalism professor, Sheila Coronel: "Ferdinand Marcos and his First Lady, Imelda, presided over what has been called a conjugal dictatorship. Thousands of dissenters were tortured, killed and jailed during their reign. Theirs was a world-class kleptocracy. They amassed an estimated 10 billion dollars — that’s 1980s dollars! — of plundered wealth. Some of that, they used to purchase Manhattan real estate. A lot of it, they hid in Swiss bank." This is just one of many examples that shows just how significant kleptocracy was in defining the Marcoses' rule. https://www.kenyon.edu/news/archive/venturing-into-unknown-skies/ Acknowledging that there have been many kleptocrats. But Marcoses' rule wasn't just any kleptocracy. Mr. Marcos was the biggest kleptocrat in the country's history. He presided over a world-class kleptocracy and that is best included in the first sentence of the article about Mr. Marcos. - Crisantom (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Masem's version. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree Marcos was a dictator according to reliable sources. He was also a kleptocrat according to reliable sources. Dictatorship and kleptocracy were defining characteristics of his rule and should stay. These are neutral terms and there is nothing controversial in applying these terms to Marcos or his administration. These are distinguishing features of the subject and as such need to stay in the opening sentence. -Crisantom (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• ALERT!. Keep in mind that Masem is NOT suggesting that we lose any content or remove the words. They are just getting moved to slightly later. It's all there, so there is no censorship, whitewashing, or attempt to bury these facts. They still figure prominently in the lead. Crisantom and Object404, your comments are notable for ignoring these facts, so please stay on-topic by NOT discussing the inclusion/exclusion or use of the terms. We are keeping them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks, edited. I disagree with removing the terms from the first sentence. Crisantom (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Crisantom, you are not getting my point. Masem is NOT suggesting we remove them from the lead, so many of your protestations should be stricken or revised, as you're off-topic. You're fighting against a straw man of your own creation, and that just creates confusion. The third sentence of the lead is this: "One of the most controversial leaders of the 20th century, Marcos' rule was considered a dictatorship and kleptocracy, and was infamous for its corruption, extravagance, and brutality." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
      • As Alexbrn says, "a well-written article should have in the first sentence the main reason why the subject is notable". MOS:FIRSTBIO dictates that the opening sentence use the objective, factual, non-contentious terms "dictator" and "kleptocrat" as these are the things Marcos is most notable for. -Object404 (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
        • You're selectively reading FIRSTBIO as there's other lines that say that there should be things avoided in the first sentence too. It absolutely does not dictate this approach and in fact cautions against it. But we still absolutely want to hit those terms in the overall intro lede para. --Masem (t) 05:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
          • I am not doing selective reading. Do you mean this? "However, try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead section."? Two non-contentious, objective, factual and neutral terms used to refer to the subject by academics, historians, political scientists, historians and journalists -- two simple words -- are hardly "overloading". -Object404 (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
            • Yes it is, because if the reader only reads the first sentence, they have no idea why those terms apply. A good impartial tone is going to briefly explain why those terms apply (that he imposed martial law, and that under this there was widespread corruption, and hence why his term was seen as a dictatorship/kleptocracy). That's stuff you can't fully build into a single sentejnce, and as it is, stating that term without the background just makes the sentence accusation and adversaliar, which is out of alignment with the NPOV tone we are trying to achieve. If you build up from undisputed facts of history (the martial law and existance of corruption), then you are hanging the terms of dictator and kleptocrat on a solid foundate that is not adversial but still within the lede paragraph, meeting all requirements of NPOV and FIRSTBIO. --Masem (t) 05:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
              • Please refer to Wikipedia's "inverted pyramid" recommendation (not a hard and fast rule): "The main feature of the inverted pyramid is placement of important information first, with a decreasing importance as the article advances". Marcos was a president, but what made him particularly notable as a president were his dictatorship and kleptocracy, which are very important information about him. Ergo, these 2 objective, factual, non-contentious, concise and succinct terms (dictator and kleptocrat) are stylistically very appropriate in the lead sentence. Again, the terms dictator and kleptocrat in reference to Marcos are non-contentious, undisputed, objective, and neutral factual statements of history. I fail to see how they are in any way "adversarial" if we are merely laying down cold, hard, undisputed facts. Do you also mean to say we need to lay down that he was elected in preceding sentences before we can state that he was "president"? No. There is absolutely no need for a "build up" before Wikipedia states the cold, hard, uninvolved, neutral and undisputed historical facts that Marcos was a dictator and a kleptocrat. -Object404 (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Masem's version. My reasoning is as follows: As evidenced by the results of the recent presidential election in the Philippines, many Filipinos are completely taken by Bongbong Marco's historical distortions of his father's 20 year rule over the Philippines, which he has spread very effectively on social media platforms over many years. This makes NPOV all the more important to adhere to, as if our article is too loaded with what Masem calls the subjective facets, then we may lose neutrality and credibility in the eyes of some wayward readers, who will then become reluctant about reading rest of the article and sceptical about the sources selected - and that is the majority of Filipinos right now 😔😒. We do ourselves a great disservice by frontloading the lead with these facets, no matter how factual and accurate they are, and whether they are objective or subjective. I have created a section below about the BongBong Marcos article lead, where I feel this is all the more important, as also noted by editors there. CutePeach (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, we have to remember that the lead sentence speaks in Wikipedia's voice and when such voice states directly in the lead sentence that a public figure is a "dictator", "despot", "bloody tyrant" or "kleptocrat", we risk diminishing Wikipedia's prestige as an encyclopedia. We are not a partisan newspaper or magazine and we should not be seen as a propaganda organ. No encyclopedia uses such terms and neither should Wikipedia.

For the most part, Wikipedia remains neutral and impartial, as confirmed by the stylistic form used in the above 15 lead sentences of articles delineating despotic rulers in the 20th century. However, past the lead sentence or lead paragraph, Wikipedia text should proceed to state that "sources have described Joseph Stalin, etc as a dictator responsible for the deaths of millions, etc". The understanding should be that it is the sources that describe the public figure as a "dictator" and not partisan Wikipedia editors who are writing the article. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, but Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear: MOS:FIRSTBIO states: "The first sentence should usually state: (4) One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms. (5) The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)". MORE THAN being former president of the Philippines, Marcos is most famous globally for his dictatorship and kleptocracy. Re: Kleptocracy - in fact he was Guinness Record holder for Greatest Robbery of a Government for decades. These, along with his record of human rights abuses are what he is mainly known for GLOBALLY. Neither dictator nor kleptocrat are contentious terms as NOBODY (except for Marcos fanatics) disagrees that he was a dictator or kleptocrat. That he was a dictator and kleptocrat is also OBJECTIVE fact, supported by HUNDREDS of scholarly, academic and journalistic reliable sources: historians, economists, political scientists and journalists all classify him as such. Let me repeat the consensus that the newsroom of CNN arrived at: There is NO COLOR in calling a dictator a dictator. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia guidelines are very clear, dictator and kleptocrat belong in the first sentence. -Object404 (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's the fundamental problem - you are clearly invested to make sure the Marcos are blamed as much as possible for what they did to the Singapores. I can understand that you may be fighting a handful of devoted editors that want to whitewash the crimes of the Marcos but you have several vocies here that I very much doubt support this idea that still see the neutrality problem introduced by forcing "dictator" into the lede sentence. That's moralization, which WP cannot do in Wikivoice per WP:NPOV (see the essay WP:MORALIZE for example). It may be very tempting when you have a huge body of sources that all place blame on them, but that blame can be made by way of facts (that he ruled under martial law, that there was corruption during his rule, etc.) such that the conclusion of RSes fully follows, at which point there is no moralization of the issue. We're supposed to be writing dispassionately and that may mean stepping back and recognizing when a point - fully backed by RSes - may be pushing wikivoice out of a dispasionate mode. Nothing in FIRSTBIO requires notable facets to be in the first sentence, only that it should, whereas adherence to NPOV is a requirement in all spaces in mainspace. --Masem (t) 04:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The argument that editors shouldn't do what they should is odd (write COI articles for example). Editors that continually don't do what they should are known as bad editors. Alexbrn (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

No, that's a twisted view of the NOT#BURO aspect of content policies. FIRSTBIO saying "should" provides good initial guidance, but that also means other policies and considerations may be controlling. None of the content policies are behaviorial ones, where we would value the importance of "should" and editors repeatedly going off track from that. --Masem (t) 03:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That is correct. The description should be in an impartial or dispassionate tone. Kleptocrat and dictator do that, describe the subject in an impartial/dispassionate tone. The words are precise and concise and as such are perfect words to to describe Mr. Marcos in the lead sentence. These are backed by reliable sources and adhere to NPOV requirements perfectly. These words are not used with the intent to promote hate or moralize. These are merely descriptors, supported by academics and the mass media. Fact checkers support the assertions. Law professors support the assertions. Historians support the assertions. These are facts that speak for themselves and are not contentious. There is no need to remove the terms from the lead sentence. - Crisantom (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

"Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Role Dege31 (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• "Dictator" is fine & necssary (I notice the BBC uses it here[18] as the sole descriptor in reminding people who FM was). But "kleptocrat" is not a top-level descriptor and would a little odd in the opening sentence. Alexbrn (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • "Kleptocrat" is a top-level descriptor of Ferdinand Marcos in this recent Chicago Tribune article. Dictator and kleptocrat are what make Marcos notable globally and gives him international fame. Otherwise he would just be another Philippine president no one would know in international cricles. Marcos is very famous for having held the Guinness record for greatest robbery of a government for decades. Not only was he a kleptocrat, he was an internationally exceptional kleptocrat. -Object404 (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree - I'm inclined to agree towards a rewording, but I believe that it has to be clear that Marcos was a Dictator and Kleptocrat. The thread so far seems to agree on the backing of research that marks him as such. While I find myself agreeing with Alexbrn that the word "Kleptocrat" may be too technical (or unique), it is the only word I can find that accurately describes what has been recognized of Ferdinand Marcos globally. "Dictator" can still be kept on the lead line considering (1) the plain definition (in the lead sentence of its own wiki page) refers it as "a political leader who possesses absolute power", and (2) that Marcos is recognized globally to have used such powers from 1972-1986 (Pro-Marcos sources do not argue that he wasn't a dictator in the plain sense, so we could "call a spade a spade" as Object404 puts it).

The concerns raised by CutePeach for NPOV do also have meaning. The talk pages of Ferdinand and Bongbong Marcos have both been flooded with claims that Marcos was the best president of the nation and that Wikipedia authors are "black propagandists" for presenting the facts. But I think this is par for the course, as there is a large historical distortion campaign being undertaken by the Marcoses to whitewash their image (See Historical Distortion regarding Ferdinand Marcos and Ferdinand Marcos's cult of personality ). Attempts to discredit Wikipedia as a platform, regardless of us upholding the best standard of NPOV etc., will still persist as long as there is at least one inch of the page that criticizes the Marcoses. The encyclopedia still has to present the facts regardless of how it is subjectively interpreted. Immaterial Chicken (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Just because nothing is omitted but simply re-arranged or moved does not mean it won't alter the truthfulness of the page. We all know that the alteration suggested is easily called "burying the lede," something that a prestigious or credible encyclopedia would and should never do, and therefore Wikipedia and its editors should also never resort to. It has been stated over and over among various credible and international sources, throughout decades, that the actions of Marcos qualifies him to definitively be a "dictator" and a "kleptocrat" and therefore the words are not used here subjectively nor controversially. A credible encyclopedia also has to be precise with their definitions. If words that best describe a subject and their notability do exist, i do not see why their usage should be relegated elsewhere other than the opening sentence. Channahnocturne (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

As I've pointed out Encyclopedia Britannica does not use either term in describing Marcos, though clearly spend time on his martial law and corruption during his rule.. Does that make eB an uncredible work? this is the issue when there us excessive focus on terms rather than outlining the facts to let them speak for themselves. --Masem (t) 13:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus EB is reliable, and is not bound by Wikipedia's WP:PAGs. I'd hope editors here aim a big higher than EB! Alexbrn (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

IMO there aren't really any articles on Wikipedia that aren't noticeably worse than their counterpart on Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia is, in general, extremely bad. So aiming for a standard similar to EB would be shooting for the stars compared to the standard of most articles on Wikipedia. (There are probably like 2 or 3 exceptions in a couple of featured articles like climate change.) Endwise (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The key is not about EB's reliability, but its editorial process that works to make sure articles are neutrally written. That's the goal we should be striving for as a tertiary source. --Masem (t) 03:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise you don’t mind the lack of sources? And your evidence? Doug Weller talk 18:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise See [19] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 364#Britannica: a "strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?] Doug Weller talk 18:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

This isn't an RSN discussion, I don't think we need to dig into the weeds regarding evidence of the reliability of EB for use as a source on Wikipedia articles; we can both disagree on this without it being a tragedy in need of rectification. Endwise (talk) 06:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Support something along the lines of Masem's suggestion. When articles read like we are trying to pull at a reader's emotions we have an issue. This is an encyclopedia and we should use impartial and the opening sentence should start with the concrete then move to the subjective. As was mentioned above, any article that makes someone who wasn't Hitler sound worse than Hitler is probably poorly written. Note: I'm not rehashing all the good arguments made above just a few. Please do not assume that this is the total extent of my views on writing with an encyclopedic tone. Springee (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment - After perusing new arguments presented above, I still believe both Dictator and Kleptocrat should be retained in the first sentence, where it provides essential information about the subject which a reader should be able to see immediately. However, I do believe Dictator is the much-more essential of the two descriptions, such that even as we discuss keeping "kleptocrat," the question of retaining "dicatator" ought to be something we discuss separately. - Thundersub (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Those who continue to insist that "dictator", with or without "kleptocrat", must appear in Marcos' lead sentence, should once again (or for the first time) glance at the above 15 lead sentences of the Wikipedia entries for Stalin, Mussolini, Ho Chi Minh, Josip Broz Tito, Mao, Perón, Papa Doc Duvalier, Kim Il-sung. Mugabe, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Saddam, Mengistu and Gaddafi, none of whom has a lead sentence that uses the term "dictator". In fact, no one in English Wikipedia has an entry that starts with "X was / is a [name of country] dictator" and, if an entry using such a form is found, the term "dictator" has been unilaterally inserted in that particular lead sentence and should be moved to a lower paragraph of the entry. The Wiki-voice lead sentence must remain objective and encyclopedic. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, I repeat. The terms dictator and kleptocrat as descriptors are neutral statement of fact. The following individuals have these descriptions in their opening sentences and these articles of theirs are of Wikipedia "Good article class": Seung-Hui Cho - "mass-murderer", Terry Peder Rasmussen - "serial killer", Ted Bundy - "American serial killer" who "kidnapped, raped, and murdered", and Al Capone - "gangster". Neutral facts are merely being stated in all of these cases. All of these descriptions are uncolored, objective, non-contentious neutral statements of fact. Also, all of these people had less bodycounts than Ferdinand Marcos. Yes Ferdinand Marcos was president of a country, but what made him of particular note and gave him global fame was his dictatorship of human rights abuses and exceptional kleptocracy/corruption/governance by theft, so exceptional that he held the Guinness World Record for greatest robbery of a government for decades. Take away the "dictator" and "kleptocrat" descriptors, and Ferdinand Marcos would be just another Philippine president, largely unknown and forgotten to the entire world. Dictator and kleptocrat are what give Marcos notability, moreso than his being just another Philippine president. Hence, they belong in the lead sentence. -Object404 (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Masem's version. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 04:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• I don’t think anyone is arguing that we should not mention that Marcos is resoundingly referred to as a dictator and a kleptocrat… the issue is how and where to mention this fact. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Manuel Noriega, Augusto Pinochet, and Adolf Hitler all have "dictator" in their lead sentence. Marcos was the greatest kleptocrat of his time and famously held the Guinness World Record for Greatest Robbery of a Government for decades. MOS:FIRSTBIO says this strong guideline to editors: "The first sentence should usually state: (4) One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms. (5) The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)". Marcos is known globally more for being a dictator and kleptocrat than for being a president. There is also WP:PYRAMID which suggests "placement of important information first, with a decreasing importance as the article advances". There are legal declarations on the use of these terms as pertaining to Marcos, making them objective by the own standards of many commenters here: Marcos was legally a dictator via Proclamation No. 1081 and General Order No. 1 as well as legally declared a kleptocrat via Supreme Court ruling G.R. No. 189434. There is no contention that Marcos was dictator and kleptocrat, ergo the terms are not contentious. Therefore, there is no reason why we can't use "dictator" and "kleptocrat" in Marcos's lead sentence. -Object404 (talk) Object404 (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hitler aside, Noriega and Pinochet had "dictator" unilaterally added to their lead sentence. It is natural and understandable to be aggrieved at authoritarians and totalitarians and such despots should be so described in appropriate sections of their Wikipedia entries. Terminology to the effect of, "historians such as A, B and C have described X as a dictator and a kleptocrat" would be certainly appropriate in the second paragraph or even at the bottom of the lead paragraph.

However, it cannot be repeated enough — Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and no encyclopedia uses the un-encyclopedic terms "dictator" and especially "kleptocrat", a term which cannot be found in an entry for any other head of state or national leader. Virtually all authoritarians and totalitarians were dictators who have taken money from the state treasury for personal use, as evidenced by Saddam, Gaddafi, Papa Doc, Baby Doc, Mengistu or Idi Amin, to say nothing of Stalin, Mao, Broz Tito, Fidel Castro, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un or Lukashenko and yet none is described as a "dictator" or "kleptocrat" in the Wikivoice of their lead sentence and to use such terms discredits Wikipedia's standing as a neutral and objective resource. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean "unilaterally added"? Augusto Pinochet has had "dictator" in his lead sentence over a decade now. Next, please explain to everyone in clear and unequivocal terms why the terms "dictator" and "kleptocrat" are not encyclopedic, especially when "dictator" and "kleptocracy" have their respective encyclopedia entries outside of Wikipedia. -Object404 (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Such is the nature of Wikipedia — individual editors make their own personal edits and, if no one challenges that edit, it will stay for years until someone does challenge it. Since Pinochet has been widely described as a "dictator", no one bothered to challenge it. However, the Wikivoice in lead sentences of articles delineating national leaders is not about any one person, but about WP:CONSISTENT in presenting an encyclopedic style.

The terms themselves are encyclopedic, but their use in lead sentences of articles about national leaders is not encyclopedic, unless the encyclopedia is the Great Soviet Encyclopedia or Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian Encyclopedia or the North Korean Encyclopedia, etc. As Masem already explained, we do not deny despotic national leaders' status as dictators and kleptocrats, but we do not state it in Wikipedia's voice and certainly not in the lead sentence which is expected to be neutral, dispassionate and expressed in a style analogous to the style used by standard encyclopedias issued in the English-speaking world. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Masem's version or something along those lines. I don't think it is a big deal either way, but as Roman Spinner says we should be dispassionate and consistent. The Marcos article comes off as having an axe to grind. It's not necessary and is not how these type of articles are generally handled. Object404 responded to a long list of analogous articles that aren't phrased like this one with the defense that one article, Pinochet, has used the word dictator for a long time. That is not a compelling argument. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Masem's suggestion, likely with minor adjustments. Tone issues relate to both neutrality and maintaining a professional encylopedic style. It's not really possible to separate the two aspects, as when an article isn't written in an encylopedic tone, it often results in it appearing to be emotive, or urging a reader what to think. Masem's suggestion brings the lead into line with other encylopedic entries on dictators, and the terms dictator(ship) and kleptocra(cy) are maintained. This is not a case of whitewashing or censorship, but consistency. Outlining factual information before moving onto historical assessments is standard practice within article leads, particularly biographies. From a scan of the conversation above, I note that the majority of experienced editors are broadly in favour of Masem's adjustments, while those against it tend to have less experience; this doesn't mean their objections are invalid, but it does suggest they are more likely to be emotionally invested in this particular issue, or unfamiliar with the difficulties of treating controversial content objectively on Wikipedia. I'd prefer to slightly strengthen some of the wording of Masem's proposal (e.g. widely considered, or his rule was noted for [the scale of state theft] etc.), but the principles are correct. Jr8825 • Talk 11:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree. While I could somewhat agree with moving the word "kleptocrat" (or "kleptocracy") from the 1st sentence to later in the lead (though I would prefer not to), my view is that "dictator" must still be placed on the 1st sentence. Marcos's authoritarian regime is the most-defining feature of his life and therefore simply stating in a sterile manner that Marcos is a politican, lawyer, and president as the first sentence is kinda distorting what Marcos really is. I don't really care about how other dictators' articles are written because there's no guidelines or policies that says that biographies of autocrats have to be written in a certain way. And looking at recent news articles from Time Magazine[20], The Guardian[21], BBC[22], and WaPo[23], the word "dictator" is used to describe Marcos on the news article title or the 1st sentence. If these reliable sources can state with confidence that Marcos is a dictator upfront, why shouldn't Wikipedia? —seav (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  This is a fair point. "Dictator" is a common primary title in a way that "kleptocrat" is not, so can fit naturally in an opening sentence (e.g. "X was a politician who was dictator of Y-land from 1900-1901"). I still think that "kleptocracy", and assessments about the brutality of his reign/scale of theft belong further down the lead. Jr8825 • Talk 15:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Bongbong Marcos lead

A significant number of editors and IPs have requested the removal of dictator and kleptocrat descriptors from the lead of the Bongbong Marcos article [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. While I disagree with removing the descriptors from the lead entirely, I think it is unencyclopedic to have them in the first sentence or paragraph without contextualizing them in relation to his father Ferdinand Marcos and Bongbong's own distortionism of the Marcos family and their unexplained wealth. Since Marcos junior was recently elected as president of the Philippines, and since he has succeeded in spreading disinformation about our history [30], I think we need to be careful how we describe him so as not to turn off Filipinos under his influence from reading the article in full. CutePeach (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The lead in reference to first mention of his parents ("second child and only son of former president, dictator and kleptocrat[8] Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and former first lady and convicted criminal[9][10] Imelda Romualdez Marcos.[2]") reads to me like a tad too much piling on "but it's truuuee!" than called for (Wikipedians have a problem distinguishing pedantry from good prose, and seemingly can't resist the lure of the shoehorn). I think a phrasing like "...son of former Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and first lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos." is probably sufficient context for the first mention of his parents in lead, while other pertinent deeds and crimes of the parents can be mentioned or elaborated further in the lead, or relegated to the body as appropriate.  We need not introduce Chelsea Clinton, for example, with "is the daughter of impeached[3] President Bill Clinton and unsuccessful presidential candidate[2][4][5] Hillary Clinton..." --Animalparty! (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion of those terms in regards to Ferdinand (not the topic of the article) is absolutely coatracking and should be removed. --Masem (t) 15:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. If (and it probably should) the article deals with Bongbong's relationship to his father and his history and actions, it would be good to mention these things, but they don't belong in the lead. It's clear coatracking and poisoning the well. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

To add, if his father's legacy has influenced his rule (whether he tried to continue that dictatorship, or that his people have demanded changes from that), that's all 100% appropriate to discuss in that context in the body, and possibly in the lede. --Masem (t) 15:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with CutePeach, Animalparty, Masem and Valjean, especially since what may be construed as partisan content presented in such un-encyclopedic form is being stated in Wikivoice, thus diminishing Wikipedia's standing as an WP:NPOV encyclopedia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I see that "dictator" is appropriate to some of you for the first mention of his parents in the lead, but I'd just like to point out here the following regarding the term kleptocrat. While the rule of Bongbong Marcos has not started, he had a direct hand in trying to withdraw the wealth of the Philippine people that his father stole and stashed away in swiss bank accounts, which journalist Raissa Robles narrates here. He continues to refuse to pay his roughly $4million real estate tax debt to the government from his parents' amassed properties. It can therefore be said that until the present, Marcos Jr has benefited from and continues to protect their family kleptocracy. Until today too, Bongbong is completely unapologetic about the crimes of his family, and his sister Imee Marcos stated after his presidential win was that their #1 priority was rehabilitating their family name. Most important for them is not the economy, pandemic health crisis, or Filipino people, but instead, their family name. In their continued moves towards historical negationism, Marcos Jr has stated back in 2020 that Philippine textbooks need to be revised to "remove lies about his family". In what looks to be a concrete action of this, Marcos Jr's very 1st cabinet appointee as President-elect is, of all things, to the Department of Education, which controls textbooks and history curriculum for Filipino students. Just a few things for everyone to note. So as for "father's legacy has influenced his rule" -> it looks like rewriting his father's image is going to be a driving feature of his presidency. -Object404 (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is overall an unnecessary COATRACK of hate on Ferdinand Marcos. But I would say that we should keep one of the terms, or at least some of the description, to not go too far to the other direction. My suggestion would be: "second child and only son of former president Ferdinand Marcos and former first lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos, who have been described as a despotic and kelptocratic royal family." or something like that. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I am not disagreeing with Object404 and Ganmatthew about the actual facts. My main concern is about style. CutePeach (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Close request: RfC on lede description of Azov Battalion as neo-nazi

If any experienced closers are feeling brave, the RFC at Talk:Azov Battalion#RFC designation of Azov "Battalion" as neo-Nazi in lede has been sitting at Wikipedia:Closure requests for 8 days now and could really use a close (ideally a panel close).

The disagreement has been dominating discussion on that page for well over two months now, spilling well beyond the RFC (see eg multiple further threads on the talk page archives), and getting in the way of other work on the page. An authoritative close (even if only on the central issue, whether a lede description of Azov Battalion as neo-nazi in Wikipedia voice is compatible with WP:NPOV) would therefore be appreciated.

Volunteers to make the close should ideally make themselves known in the relevant section at Wikipedia:Closure requests. -- Jheald (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Request also made at WP:AN -- Jheald (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Y Request has been claimed. Jheald (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Kanawut Traipipattanapong

This page is consistently bombarded by SPAs who are fans and look to add overly promotional material and language.

Today, one editor is blindly reverting any attempt to restore the page to at least somewhat neutral state, as well as removing fan pov template.

As I am at 3RR and editor is yet to engage in any discussion (edit summaries, article tall, user talk), I am bringing this to a larger audience so community can review the article.Slywriter (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality issues at Ukrainian artist Kazimir Malevich raised by media report

A post at Lawfare has raised neutrality issues at the article of Ukrainian artist Kazimir Malevich, some of which seem to have not yet been resolved. It could use some eyes from some independent editors. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Robert Lee Moore

Robert Lee Moore is famous as a mathematics educator but also, unfortunately, not merely racist but famous as a racist. We've had several past incidences of (usually anonymous) editors trying to downplay or remove the well-sourced attestations of Moore's racism, misogyny, and antisemitism and now we have another one. More eyes on the article would be welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The issue of course isn't "should we or shouldn't we mention verifiable racism/misogyny?" but "how much of the article should be devoted to it?" The Racism section currently makes up about 20% of the biography. Is this appropriate weight per WP:PROPORTION? Of course it's an important issue, and likely received additional attention due to recent nationwide reflections on American racist namesakes. I'm unfamiliar with the subject but, Peter Ross's review of Parker's biography of Moore seems to indicate that Moore's racist/sexist social views were discussed only in chapter 15 (in which Parker "makes it clear that Moore was not a misogynist"). Ross also mentions Moore had prominent feuds with several other mathematicians, and Corry 2007 is a 13 page article about an clash between Moore and Harry Vandiver, yet none of these feuds, nor Vandiver, are mentioned in the Wikipedia article, although Corry 2007 has been used selectively to augment the racism section. As Keith Devlin notes in his cited blog post "Moore's racial attitude was nothing unusual for a white person who was born and lived most of his life in Texas in the late Nineteenth Century and the first three quarters of the Twentieth." Looks like there's plenty of room to expand other aspects of Moore's career so that negative and positive aspects alike are treated more proportionally to their prominence in reliable sources, without cherry-picking, coatracking, whitewashing, or recentism. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I answered in more depth on the article talk. Neither Moore nor the well-documented incidents of his racism are particularly recent. It is my impression that, among mathematicians, Moore may be the most famously racist (although not actually the most racist, compared to others like Ludwig Bieberbach). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Agdam

1.Article: Agdam

2. Proposal: Proposal is to remove following statement from the Agdam article: Agdam lies in the vicinity of Tigranakert of Artsakh, an ancient Armenian city dating to the 2nd–1st centuries B.C..

3. Discussions were held here: Talk:Agdam#Vicinity_of_Tigranakert

4. Reason for removal: This statement is not related to the Agdam or to the history of the Agdam. Statement does not have significance to the article topic and irrelevant as per WP:BALASP. No RS, tying Tigtanakert to the history of the Agdam is available. There are a lot of historical monuments around the Agdam, but unrelated to the Agdam, should we list all of them in the early history section of the Agdam city article? Obviously no. Abrvagl (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Abrvagl honestly can you stop taking every minute disagreement to noticeboards? Some editors find this fact due or interesting enough that it merits inclusion. I think it's a pretty cool fact, personally, and encyclopedic enough to warrant inclusion. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 20:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Previous settlements in the area look relevant to me. --StellarNerd (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

This does not remotely rise to the level of an NPOV issue. Seek WP:3O or start an WP:RFC if you must.Slywriter (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Ixtal, StellarNerd, Slywriter. Hi. Thanks for reply. I do agree that it is pretty cool and encyclopedic fact, but what is the relevance? My point is that information about the previous settlement (Tigranakert), which located 15 KM away from the Agdam city and discovered in 2005, is irrelevant to the early history of the Agdam city. Should we list all cool and encyclopedic, but irrelevant facts in the early history of the cities? WP:BALASP clearly states: description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. The only way how that statement can be properly kept in the article, is by creating subcategory like Notable Places and list all notable places in and around the Agdam city. What do you think? Abrvagl (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Placing this fact within the history section seems appropriate. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 07:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Guardian source, prominence, use to accuse a group.

[31] is used in Fano (militia) article. ‘According to researcher, the men spoke Amharic and some are thought to be from the Amhara militia group, Fanos’.

A paywalled Reuters source was used alongside it in which after verification turned out they didn't mention Fano militia, and is now removed.

Other reliable (DW, Reuters, Al-Jazeera) sources say uniformed soldiers did this. Ethiopian soldiers, uniformed forces from the Amhara Region and Southern Nation, Nationalities, and People's Region can be seen in the video, according to the Ethiopian Human Rights Commision. [32] [33] [34]

How reliable/neutral is the Guardian for this accusation? It doesn't say which researchers said ‘some are thought to be Fano's’? Because it stands alone (other opinion sites mention Fano based on this article) in accusing Fano's for this incident. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Section heading at Thomas More Society claiming lawsuits are "Critical race theory lawsuits"

A claim only found by those involved in the lawsuit and conservative/right wing media. T See [35] and [36]. This[37] may be relevant also.[38]

Side issue maybe not relevant here, I'm not happy with non-resolved lawsuits being included even if they do get publicity (which is pretty inevitable with the type of lawsuit the society handles). Doug Weller talk 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Unless CRT is specifically named in RSes related to these suits, its originally research and a NPOV violation to use that in a section heading. Something like "Education-based lawsuitd" would be more neutral. --Masem (t) 15:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Eyes on Far-right politics in Ukraine

Please can editors look at this discussion and weigh in on the due weight of various opinions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Please check the Turkish language page

Hello! Please I need some help at this page. Some user, that in my opinion operate without neutral point of view (support at the Taksim in the case of Cyprus), have reverted some changes I did and of course I explained them (they are about the official status of Northern Cyprus). The excuse was that "the status of Northern Cyprus is described at its own link". This is obviously wrong and it has nothing to do with the changes I did. The fact that Northern Cyprus is not an actually recognized state, while it's recognized as an occupied territory need to be explained EVERY TIME that it's mentioned at the link, because we are referring at an OFFICIAL language, and here we have an UNOFFICIAL state. The most propagandist part in my opinion, is the following phrase: "Turkish is the official language of Turkey and Northern Cyprus", while Cyprus is not mentioned as a country that has Turkish as official language at the introduction. So it's like they tell us that Cyprus is referring to the greek-southern part of the island, while its actually covering ALL OF THE ISLAND... You need to do something please... Thank you! Greek Rebel (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing like unofficial state. Don't spread such views. Beshogur (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Do you prefer "occupied territory"? Greek Rebel (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Cyprus, in particular Northern Cyprus, is relevant to the article. The sad reality in island of Cyprus is that the island is divided and almost all Greek speakers relocated to the south part and almost all Turkish speakers relocated to the Northern part. The recognized state controls only the southern part, while the northern part is recognized only by Turkey. Turkish is important in Cyprus overall, and Cyprus should be mentioned in the Turkish article, however one goes about the complexities of the political-ethnic schism in Cyprus. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@StellarNerd: I understand it, but please see my version. I also mention Northern Cyprus. The difference is that I describe the status of the shelf-proclaimed state. The other users just insist to refer at Northern Cyprus like it is a normal independent state. Greek Rebel (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Teacher with gun in classroom

Teacher protects students with a handgun

This image said to be non-NPOV in arming teachers. Comment on article talk page if you can; I will also link that discussion to this notice. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Sex differences in intelligence

Sex differences in intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dealing with some WP:BLUDGEON issues at this article's talk page. In terms of content, the dispute hinges on how much nuance we should be conveying to the reader. See in particular this thread. A third editor (whom I regard as neutral) has been called in but the bludgeoning has not stopped, and at this point I think it's too much to put on one person to arbitrate. More eyes would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Uncivil, misleading posts aside, what we need our neutral editors willing to assess the resources at play and giving their thoughts on whether using qualifying language that is not found in the resources and misreports the research, especially for findings that remain consistent, is acceptable. GBFEE (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

^This is the type of behavior I'm referring to. Apologies in advance, it's kind of a shit-show over there. Generalrelative (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

^It is that type of show over there, but not for the reason you claim. GBFEE (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• From a quick reading of that thread, I agree with GBFEE, and your insertion of qualifiers not found in sources reads to me like original research. We should stick to what the sources actually say; nowhere in WP:YESPOV can I find an invitation to insert OR. Past the sourced cited in the article, GBFEE referenced additional sources which introduce the verbal/spatial sex differences as "recent studies consistently find a reading advantage for girls"[39], "The male advantage in mental rotation... emerges consistently across cultures... Men exceeded women in mental rotation ability in every country",[40], "Women consistently score higher than men on tests of verbal ability... whereas men consistently score higher on tests of spatial ability,"[41], etc. Your insertion of the qualifiers that these differences are "sometimes" found on "some" tests doesn't really seem to be supported by anything but your own POV on the matter, or at least it is not supported by any sources you've found, as it appears the only source you mentioned on the talk was one about mathematical ability, which is not relevant to the article content you changed. So TLDR the previous version without all the OR "sometimes" and "some" qualifiers is better. GBFEE's posts were long, yes, but Brandolini's law applies; it requires less text to merely assert something than to substantiate it with reliable sources. Endwise (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  And indeed, it takes even more space to explain how each of those citations has been misrepresented, which is why responding to a wall of text is so often unfeasible –– and why producing one can be rightly described as disruptive. "Some" and "sometimes" are certainly supported by the sources; you just have to actually look. For example, I wrote that females have been specifically found to perform slightly better on some tests of vocabulary and according to one of the sources trotted out by GBFEE of all people By later childhood, however, sex differences in vocabulary generally disappear. [42] So the previous language females have been specifically found to perform slightly better in vocabulary (recently restored by Crossroads) is flatly misleading. In any case, if anyone else happens by and would like to engage in some good-faith discussion over at the article talk page, that would be appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Endwise, Generalrelative quotes that sentence from this[43] resource as though I didn't see it. The page divides verbal topics and then it has a reading and writing section. See what each say. If you review what resources say about males and visual-spatial ability/mental rotation, it's not unclear that this shouldn't have a qualifier such as "on some tests of". With this edit,[44] where I'm dressing up my post, you can find where I said "these resources do not oversimplify this information. They offer caveats, etc., while pointing out what the consistent and less consistent findings are. When something is inconsistent, or a 'small' or 'small to moderate' difference, the resources will say this." For how the sentence about the review was presented, I've also addressed that at the article's talk page. In any case, what another resource says is no reason to use qualifiers for what a 2012 review says when those qualifiers aren't in the resource. Adding contextual information from different references, which is an acceptable option, is different than changing the wording for a reference to include qualifiers that alter its finding. GBFEE (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Japaneseism: Hoax?

Copy pasted from the talk page:

The wording in this article is extremely suspicious.

Anti-Japaneseism radicalized this argument by claiming that even communist revolution could not redeem Japan because the Japanese themselves possess an inherent "aggressive nature". Proponents of this theory believe that the only way to redeem oneself from the "oppressor and criminal Japanese race" is to fight against all Japanese interests until the "Japanese" archipelago has been purged of anything Japanese. The so-called "final solution" of Anti-Japaneseism is to wipe the nation called "Japan" from the face of the earth and exterminate the Japanese race. A section titled: Strategy to extinguish Japanese ethnicity There's a genuine possibility this could be neutral but I'm going to use my Occam's razor here and say that either:

This is a hoax. This is an ideology that is so radically fringe, with so few members, that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards. It is, in some way, being inaccurately represented. I have full confidence that, considering this article is only linked to by eleven actual articles that are, for the most part, obscure topics themselves, this article is not going to have enough traffic to be source-vetted by a native Japanese speaker. Despite this, it seems to have been linked to or cited on numerous online sources where some degree of political discussion, however immature, is bound to take place. For this reason, I'm going to copy-paste this message onto the NPOV noticeboard so someone more knowledgeable than me can take a look at the issue.

96.55.212.210 (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Reviving earlier post that received no responses. I agree with the original poster that there is a strong likelihood that Anti-Japaneseism is not suitable for a Wikipedia article and requires a native Japanese speaker to do some combing through the sources and verify that this ideology is genuine, held by a signficiant number of people and is being accurately represented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.254.192.168 (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Ringette

There are loads of issues at Ringette, and this report could probably be at some of the other noticeboards (BLP, OR, ...) as well. I tried to clean up the most serious issues, but have already had one revert by user:CheckersBoard who has a long history of similar problems (see their talk page). This is the revert (which I again undid), you can see in the edit history the many other bits I removed or rewrote today. Some additional eyes and input on this article are more than welcome! Fram (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Sabians

Sabians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It would be incredibly helpful if one or more editors would weigh in on Talk:Sabians#Sabian facts. Briefly reviewing the lead in this revision and this one before diving in the talk page may also help to get a quick overview of what is what. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)